1

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 3 Mission Statement ......................................................................................................................... 4 Highway Safety Office Overview Delegation of Authority ................................................................................................................ 5 Organization and Staffing ............................................................................................................ 5 Highway Safety Plan Statewide Demographics .............................................................................................................. 9 Overall Problem Identification Process and Data Sources ......................................................... 10 Statewide Goals .......................................................................................................................... 12 Core Performance Measures ...................................................................................................... 13 Grant Selection Process .............................................................................................................. 15 Police Traffic Services Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 19 Core Performance Measures ...................................................................................................... 19 State Goals ................................................................................................................................. 19 Problem Identification Overview ................................................................................................. 20 Countermeasures ........................................................................................................................ 22 Impaired Driving Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 26 Core Performance Measures ....................................................................................................... 26 State Goals .................................................................................................................................. 27 Countermeasures ........................................................................................................................ 27 Occupant Protection Program Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 31 Core Performance measures ...................................................................................................... 31 State Goals .................................................................................................................................. 32 Countermeasures ........................................................................................................................ 32 Local Road Safety Education Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 36 State Goals .................................................................................................................................. 36 Countermeasures ........................................................................................................................ 36 Data Programs Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 39 State Goals .................................................................................................................................. 39 Countermeasures ........................................................................................................................ 41 Community Traffic Safety Projects Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 43 Core Performance Measures ....................................................................................................... 43 State Goals ................................................................................................................................. 44 Problem Identification Overview ................................................................................................. 44 Countermeasures ........................................................................................................................ 46 Mature Driver Safety Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 49 State Goals ................................................................................................................................. 49 Countermeasures ....................................................................................................................... 49 Motorcycle Safety Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 51 Core Performance Measures ...................................................................................................... 51

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

State Goals ................................................................................................................................. 52 Countermeasures ....................................................................................................................... 52 Planning and Administration Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 55 Countermeasures ....................................................................................................................... 55 Certifications and Assurances State Certifications and Assurances ............................................................................................ 59 Drug Free Work Place Act of 1988 .............................................................................................. 62 Program Cost Summary ................................................................................................................ 70

3

The Highway Safety Act of 1966, 23 USC Chapter 4, Section 402, stipulates each State shall have a highway safety program approved by the Secretary that is designed to reduce traffic crashes, deaths, injuries, and property damage. To secure funding, each State must submit to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) a Performance Plan as well as a Highway Safety Plan. Contained in the Performance Plan must be a set of clear and measurable highway safety goals, descriptions of the process used in determination of the highway safety problems, and the activities on how projects will address those problems. Starting in Federal Fiscal Year 2010, NHTSA has required a set of fourteen Performance Measures and a plan for a public behavioral survey to be included in the Highway Safety Plan.

Pennsylvania’s Highway Safety Goal is to reduce 100 fatalities per year using the 2003-2007 five year average (1,547) as the baseline. By 2011, Pennsylvania hopes to reduce fatalities to 1,150 per year or less. Safety has always been one of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s (PennDOT) strategic focus areas. The programs and activities of the Highway Safety Performance Plan reflect a substantial broad-based effort designed to meet the ambitious goals.

The Department’s Bureau of Highway Safety and Traffic Engineering (BHSTE) is directly responsible for the identification of roadway safety issues related to both driver behavior and roadway improvements. To address the constant demand of evolving highway safety concerns BHSTE develops multiple plans throughout the year that collectively make up the PennDOT Highway Safety Plan.

PennDOT has developed a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) which reflects goals in the national safety priority areas. The SHSP identifies seven vital safety focus areas. These are as follows;

1. Reducing Aggressive Driving 2. Reducing Impaired (DUI) Driving 3. Increasing Seatbelt Usage 4. Addressing Infrastructure Improvements 5. Improving Traffic Records 6. Reducing Motorcycle Crashes 7. Addressing Mature Driver Safety

The SHSP was used in the development of the safety initiatives identified in the Performance Plan which defines how the Commonwealth will utilize federal section 402 highway safety funds and other NHTSA incentive and special funding sections.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

4

Vision Our vision is to provide the safest roadways possible so that everyone arrives safely at their destinations.

Mission

Our mission is to improve highway safety by developing, promoting, and implementing education, enforcement, engineering, and emergency services strategies.

MISSION STATEMENT

5

I. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY In accordance with the “U.S. Highway Safety Act of 1966” (P.L. 89-564) and any acts amendatory or supplementary thereto, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) develops an annual comprehensive plan designed to reduce traffic crashes, deaths, injuries, and property damage resulting from traffic crashes. The Department’s Bureau of Highway Safety and Traffic Engineering (BHSTE), under the direction of the Deputy Secretary for Highway Administration, is responsible for the coordination of the Commonwealth’s highway safety program by Executive Order 1987-10 (Amended). The Safety Management Division of the BHSTE is the Highway Safety Office. This supports the Pennsylvania Bulletin, Vol. 22, No. 41, October 10, 1992, approving the reorganization of the Department of Transportation, effective September 25, 1992. This reorganization changed the Deputate over the Highway Safety Office from Safety Administration to Highway Administration. The highway safety grants require the signature of the Deputy Secretary, Bureau Director, and Division Chief (or their designee based on signature authority). All grants, excluding PennDOT grants, must be approved through the Legal Office and the Office of the Comptroller. Depending on the type of grant, it may also require the signature of the Office of the General Counsel.

II. ORGANIZATION & STAFFING

BHSTE is committed to coordinating highway safety initiatives designed to impact our priority areas and programs that will help us reach our fatality reduction goals. All programs will be conducted in accordance with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) guidelines. The Bureau fulfills its mission through a variety of public information, education, and enforcement efforts. Office staff members are committed to further developing partnerships with agencies statewide, including law enforcement, emergency medical services, health care professionals, businesses, educators, and private citizen organizations. It is through these vital statewide links that we believe much can be accomplished in promoting safe driving practices.

The Deputy Secretary for Highway Administration, R. Scott Christie, P.E., is the Governor’s Highway Safety Representative for Pennsylvania. The Acting Director of the Bureau of Highway Safety and Traffic Engineering, Daryl St. Clair, P.E., is the Coordinator for Pennsylvania’s Highway Safety Program.

The functions of the Highway Safety Program are conducted by the Program Services Section of the Safety Management Division (SMD). The Division Chief of SMD is Girish (Gary) Modi, P.E., who oversees the activities of the Highway Safety Program and the Low Cost Safety Improvement Program. Gary is also the operational manager for deploying the Integrated Safety Management System (ISMS) and for the development of the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP).

The Program Services Section consists of one Manager, two Supervisors, and four Specialists. In addition, the financial functions of the Highway Safety Program are handled by the Quality

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY HIGHWAY SAFETY OFFICE OVERVIEW

6

Assurance Specialist, who reports to Tom Glass. All positions, including relevant training, are outlined below:

Tom Glass, Transportation Planning Manager (TPM) - Manages the Program Services Section, including the planning, administration, fiscal control, and evaluation of the Commonwealth’s Highway Safety Program financed through NHTSA highway safety and other federal and state funds. Other duties include, submission of the Performance Plan, the Highway Safety Plan and Program Cost Summary required for the Section 402 funding, the Annual Report, and general direction of the highway safety program. This position supervises two TPSS and one TPS-1 personnel.

Relevant Training: NHTSA Program Management; NHTSA Financial Seminar; TESC; BHSTE/CDART; ESS; The Hiring Toolkit (specifically for PennDOT Supervisors); dotGrants Application “Train-the-Trainer”; Intelligrants Grant Designer Form Builder Training; PennDOT Leadership Academy for Supervisors; National Association for Pupil Transportation courses #801 and 802; National Safe Kids Campaign National Standardized Child Passenger Safety Training Program.

Troy Love, Transportation Planning Specialist Supervisor (TPSS) - Manages the Alcohol Highway Safety Program. Oversees the completion of Section 410 applications, collection of Blood Alcohol Count (BAC) results for Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), implementation of impaired driving crackdowns and mobilizations, and other impaired driving programs and activities. Manages individual grants to conduct impaired driving enforcement, Driving Under the Influence (DUI) court grants, the DUI Technical Services contract, the statewide Ignition Interlock Quality Assurance Program, the Institute of Law Enforcement Education Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Pennsylvania Department of Education, and other projects. Assists with the Department’s e-grants system and overseas any upgrades and enhancements needed. This person supervises two Transportation Planning Specialists.

Relevant Training: NHTSA Program Management; NHTSA Data Analysis in Highway Safety Problem Identification and Program Evaluation; NHTSA Financial Seminar; NHTSA Impaired Driving Class, DUI at 0.08 Training; and PENNDOT’s Effective Presentations and Leadership Academy; dotGrants Application “Train-the-Trainer”; Intelligrants Grant Designer Form Builder Training; Outlook; ESS; TESC; BOD Effective Presentations; PennDOT Leadership Academy for Supervisors; BHSTE/CDART; The Hiring Toolkit (specifically for PennDOT Supervisors).

David Bachman, Transportation Planning Specialist Supervisor (TPSS) – Manages the Local Safety Programs, including grants administration, monitoring, Community Traffic Safety Programs, Occupant Protection Program (including the annual observational seat belt survey), Child Passenger Safety Program, Public Information and Education contract activities and enforcement programs. Coordinates the Safety Advisory Committee. Supervises two Transportation Planning Specialists.

Relevant Training: NHTSA Program Management; FHWA Environmental Training Course; Creative Problem Solving Process; ProBike/ProWalk; SEAP; PLAS for Supervisors; ESS Parts 1 and 2; SAP Navigation;; BHSTE/TESC; BHSTE/CDART; BOD/Design Peds for Accessibility; BOD/ADA Curb Ramps; Intelligrants Grant Designer Form Builder Training.

7

Scott Kubisiak, Transportation Planning Specialist 1 (TPS-1) - An Assistant Alcohol Highway Safety Program Manager. Coordinates and compiles statistical data for the Sobriety Checkpoint and Aggressive Driving Enforcement & Education Programs. Serves as project manager for the Ignition Interlock program, Motorcycle Safety projects, DUI courts, Enforcement & Judicial Outreach programs, and paid media activities. Manages all project activity for highway safety Regions IV & V.

Relevant Training: NHTSA Program Management, NHTSA Financial Seminar, NHTSA Data Analysis in Problem Identification and Program Evaluation, NHTSA Impaired Driving Training, BHSTE/CDART; BHSTE/TESC

Ryan McNary, Transportation Planning Specialist 1 (TPS-1) - An Assistant Alcohol Highway Safety Program Manager. Serves as project manager for the DUI Association Technical Services contract, Mature Driver Safety projects, and the Crash Records Law Enforcement Liaison Project. Manages the distribution of alcohol-related crash data to impaired driving enforcement projects. Contacts state and local police for the unknown BAC of surviving drivers involved in fatal crashes. Manages all project activity for highway safety regions I & III.

Relevant Training: NHTSA Program Management; Engineering and Traffic Studies Training; Operation Lifesaver Associate; BHSTE/CDART; BHSTE/TESC

Jacqueline Turk, Transportation Planning Specialist 1 (TPS-1) – An Assistant Manager of the Program Services Section. Serves as the Public Information & Education funds manager, the School Bus Projects program manager, PA State Police program manager, PA Traffic Injury Prevention Project program manager, coordinates Audio/Visual materials, and acts as lead co-coordinator of the Annual Traffic Safety Workshop for grantees. Assists in grants administration of the highway safety program. Oversees the preparation of the §405 application. Coordinates the annual observational seat belt surveys. Manages all project activity for highway safety regions II & VI.

Relevant Training: NHTSA Program Management; NHTSA Impaired Driving Program Management, NHTSA Standardized Child Passenger Safety Training Course; Intelligrants Grant Designer Form Builder Training; BHSTE/CDART; Crystal Reports (Basic)

Christopher Swihura, Transportation Planning Specialist Trainee (TPS-T) - An Assistant Manager of the Program Services Section. Administers the internal State and Statewide Project agreements for the Car Seat Loaner Program. Assists in the coordination of the Pennsylvania Highway Safety Plan. Serves as School Bus Projects Coordinator, PI&E Grant Funds Administrator, Process Manual Updates Coordinator, and manages all project activity for highway safety region II. Relevant Training: NHTSA Impaired Driving; BHSTE/CDART; Crystal Reports (Basic) Michael Dudrich, Transportation Planning Specialist (TPS-1) – Serves as the Quality Assurance manager for the highway safety program. Assists with fiscal administrative efforts in preparation of federal voucher submissions to comptroller. Reviews and tracks grantee

8

reimbursements for errors and non-compliant items; providing training to grantees as necessary. Conducts on-site project quality assurance audits in compliance with Federal requirements. Serves as the Bureau’s e-grants fiscal manager. Assists in the management of the Commonwealth’s access to the Federal Grants Tracking System and with the day to day activities related to the administration of the $15.0 million Highway Safety Grant Program.

Relevant Training: NHTSA Program Management; Intelligrants Grant Designer Form Builder Training; BHSTE/CDART; Non-PO Invoice Processing; Account Coding Navigator

9

I. STATEWIDE DEMOGRAPHICS

Pennsylvania is the 6th most populous state in the nation and has a population per square mile of 274. The state’s 44,817 square miles, (33rd in size), are divided into 67 counties. Pennsylvania’s largest cities include Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Allentown, and Erie. Thirty-three percent of the state’s 120,000 miles of roadways are state owned and the remaining 80,000 miles, 67 %, are local roads. Rural roads make up 71 % of the state’s roadways and the remaining 29 % are classified as urban. According to the US Census Bureau the population of Pennsylvania is 12,604,767. Approximately 85.4% of the population is Caucasian, 10.8% African-American, 4.8% Hispanic, 2.4% Asian/Pacific Islander, and less than one percent Native American. Pennsylvania’s population has increased 2.6 % 2009 since 2000. The US Census Bureau predicts the population of Pennsylvania will reach 12.5 million by the year 2015. The demographics of Pennsylvania show females slightly outnumber males, 51.3% to 48.7 %. People age 65 and older comprise 15.3 % of the 2009 population. In addition, people of legal driving age encompass 78.9 % of the total population. Motor Vehicle Data

Law Enforcement The police force of Pennsylvania is comprised of nearly 1,300 local police departments and the PA State Police. The Pennsylvania State Police are organized into 3 Deputates, 13 Bureaus, 5 Area Commands, and 16 Troops. Over 4,300 personnel, both enlisted and civilian are employed by the State Police.

LICENSED DRIVERS (MILLIONS)

REGISTERED VEHICLES (MILLIONS)

VMT (MILLIONS)

1998 8.405 9.842 100.4 1999 8.478 9.901 102.5 2000 8.229 10.085 102.4 2001 8.226 10.630 103.5 2002 8.324 10.520 104.8 2003 8.370 10.768 106.1 2004 8.430 10.921 107.2 2005 8.489 11.058 107.9 2006 8.556 11.086 108.1 2007 8.600 11.220 108.3 2008 8.659 11.301 107.0 2009 8.701 11.324 103.5

HIGHWAY SAFETY PLAN

10

Medical Community There are 261 hospitals and 109 ambulatory surgery centers in PA. Of those facilities, there are 190 hospital emergency departments and 30 accredited trauma centers. Workforce Pennsylvania has a workforce of over 6 million people. Medical corporations such as University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Health System, Penn State, Geisinger Health, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield are some of Pennsylvania’s largest employers. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is also one of the state’s leading employers with a workforce of more than 80,000. Over 850,000 people are employed by some type of manufacturing company. Some of the commonwealth’s major manufacturers are Hershey Foods Corp, Merck & Co Inc, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, General Electric Co Inc, Boeing Co, Air Products & Chemicals Inc, GlaxoSmithKline, Unisys Corp, United States Steel Corp, and Medtronic Inc. Elected Officials The Governor of Pennsylvania, Edward G. Rendell (D), was inaugurated January 21, 2003 and re-elected in 2006. Pennsylvania’s Lieutenant Governor, Joe Scarnati (R), was sworn in December 3, 2008. The General Assembly consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate. There are 99 Republican and 104 Democratic seats in the House. The Senate is comprised of 30 Republican and 20 Democratic seats. The Pennsylvania United States Congressional Delegation is comprised of two Senators, Arlen Spector (D) and Robert Casey Jr. (D). There are 19 Congressmen representing Pennsylvania, 7 Republicans and 12 Democrats. Legislative and Major State Issues There has been legislative discussion in Pennsylvania regarding a primary seatbelt law, ignition interlock for first-time DUI offenders, allowing the use of radar by local police departments and automated enforcement. Legislation currently resides with the Senate prohibiting wireless communication device use by junior drivers, as well as a primary statute for the booster seat law and restraint usage for junior drivers up to and including the age of 18. Due to a stretched state budget, Commonwealth employees are restricted from out of state travel unless deemed absolutely necessary for job-related duties. BHSTE has contact with the Legislature as needed. This is accomplished through a PennDOT Legislative Liaison. Also, BHSTE participates in legislative hearings when invited to review and analyze highway safety related bills. BHSTE is assigned various legislative mandates that are related to highway safety.

II. OVERALL PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION PROCESS & DATA SOURCES

The Bureau of Highway Safety and Traffic Engineering (BHSTE) is responsible for the Commonwealth’s Crash Record System. This system provides the means for identifying high crash locations, alcohol-related crashes, locations for unbelted fatalities, aggressive driving crash locations, heavy truck crashes, pedestrian and bicycle crashes, etc. The crash location data can be broken out by county, district office, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and municipality. The data can be broken down by ages, types of vehicles, holiday periods, etc.

11

The system can also identify high crash cluster areas to address particular types of crashes. The definition of a cluster can vary based on the problem identified. A particular length of roadway is reviewed, and if five or more crashes occurred within the required length of roadway over a three to five year period, it may be considered a cluster. A decision is then made to determine if education, enforcement, engineering, or a combination of these components are needed to address the problem. The BHSTE Crash Records Division provides five year alcohol-related crash data on a yearly basis for distribution to each of the approximately fifty DUI law enforcement projects. This data enables project coordinators to pinpoint significant high crash target roadways for directing sobriety checkpoints and roving patrols. Additionally, State and Local Police rely upon local road data for targeting enforcement events. Local data includes non-reportable alcohol-related crashes, as well as alcohol-related incidents and DUI arrests. In selecting our criteria for aggressive driving enforcement corridors for the Aggressive Driving Enforcement and Education Project we looked into many different possibilities. Aggressive driving fatalities and major injuries are considered in the application of law enforcement. Rarely (and fortunately) on a statewide level are there single road segments with a concentration of fatal crashes where extra police enforcement would be feasible. We ensure there are officers on roadways with the opportunity to make numerous contacts per hour. Using total aggressive driving crashes in our threshold ensures that our officers will most likely be in the presence of more aggressive drivers. Based on the amount of funding available between FY 2006-2009 the threshold for aggressive driving crashes was continuously adjusted to coincide with the level of enforcement possible. Originally only the highest priority roadways on a regional level saw extra enforcement. Now almost every roadway with an aggressive driving problem can be addressed. When conducting occupant protection education and enforcement programs, unbelted crashes and fatalities and seat belt observational use data are used to determine our low seat belt use locations. In 2004, PennDOT piloted and evaluated a nighttime safety belt enforcement project in the City of Reading to determine if nighttime enforcement for seat belts should be conducted statewide. Based on the results of the project, all NHTSA Region 3 States and the District of Columbia conducted border-to-border nighttime enforcement projects in 2006, as well as in 2007. Nighttime belt enforcement will again be used in FFY2011. The Community Traffic Safety Coordinators and District Safety Press Officers also contact BHSTE to obtain local crash data to better assist in implementing educational programs and working with police departments to address high crash problem areas. Pennsylvania has placed high importance on the availability of crash data. Pennsylvania crash data for 2009 was made available in March 2010, the earliest a year of crash data was finalized and made available since recordkeeping began. The goal for completion of 2010 crash data is April 2011. Currently, there is no backlog of un-entered crash report forms. Every crash report form received is entered into the system within 30 days.

12

All proposals for highway safety grants include county by county tables of fatalities and crashes for each of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) strategic focus areas. These tables were provided to the grantees by PennDOT and help them identify trends and pinpoint locations with higher than average crash problems. The following are examples of data supplied to grantees:

• County crash and fatality data for the past five years • Statewide trends for crashes and fatalities in all safety focus areas • Grant specific trends and goals for crashes and fatalities • Municipal specific data on all types crashes including tables and maps • County specific data on all types crashes including tables and maps.

III. STATEWIDE GOALS

Seven vital Safety Focus Areas (SFAs) were identified in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan for Pennsylvania. These are the seven areas that offer the highest potential for lives saved and the possibility of reaching our fatality reduction goals. They are listed below:

FOCUS AREA GOAL

Reducing Aggressive Driving Reduce speeding-related fatalities from 634 in 2009 to 511 in 2010, and 470 in 2011. *

Reducing Impaired Driving Reduce alcohol-related fatalities from 406 in 2009 to at least 388 by 2011.

Increasing Seatbelt Usage Increase the seat belt usage rate from 87.9 in 2009 to 88.0 in 2010, and 88.5 in 2011.

Infrastructure Improvements Reduce fatalities from head-on collisions to 157 in 2010 and 145 by 2011, reduce intersection fatalities to 280 in 2010 and 257 by 2011, reduce run-off road fatalities to 601 in 2010 and 567 by 2011 and reduce hit fixed object fatalities to 511 in 2010 and 476 by 2011.

Improving Traffic Records Complete all 2010 year crash data by April 2011.

Reducing Motorcycle Crashes Reduce motorcycle fatalities from 204 in 2009 to 190 in 2010, and 185 in 2011.*

13

*Based on FARS data

IV. CORE PERFORMANCE MEASURES

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has identified 14 Core Performance Measures and a behavioral survey that each state should use in its evaluation of its programming efforts. These measures ultimately identify the effectiveness of the state’s local programs, and are vital in viewing highway safety as a nation. They are listed below:

Mature Driver Safety Our goal is to reduce mature driver related fatalities from 276 in 2009 to 224 in 2010, and 206 in 2011.

MEASUREMENT DESCRIPTION/OBJECTIVE

Traffic Fatalities Reduce the number of traffic fatalities

Number of Serious Injuries Reduce the number of serious injuries related to motor vehicle crashes

Fatalities per VMT Reduce the number of fatalities per vehicle mile traveled

Unrestrained Passenger Vehicle Fatalities Reduce the number of unrestrained passenger fatalities

Fatalities in Crashes with a BAC of +0.08 Reduce the number of motor vehicle fatalities related to drivers with a Blood Alcohol Content of .08 or higher

Speeding Related Fatalities Reduce the number of motor vehicle fatalities related to speeding

Motorcycle Fatalities Reduce the number of motor vehicle fatalities related to motorcycles

Unhelmeted Motorcycle Fatalities Reduce the number of motor vehicle fatalities related to un-helmeted motorcyclists

Drivers age 20 or less in Fatal Crashes Reduce the number of drivers aged 20 or less involved in motor vehicle crashes resulting in fatality

Pedestrian Fatalities Reduce the number of pedestrian fatalities related to motor vehicle crashes

14

1,490 1,616 1,525 1,491 1,468 1,256 1,250 1,150200400600800

1,0001,2001,4001,6001,800

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Numb

er of

Fata

lities

Total Fatalities (2004-2009) and Goals (2010-2011)(FARS Data)

Actual Goals Linear Trendline (Actual and Projected)

4,381 4,364 4,228 4,122 3,842 3,239 3,239 3,177200

1,200

2,200

3,200

4,200

5,200

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Numb

er of

Ser

ious I

njurie

s

Total Serious Injuries (2004-2009) and Goals (2010-2011)(State Data)

Actual Goals Linear Trendline (Actual and Projected)

Seat Belt Usage Observe and collect, per 2008 Methodology, seat belt observations to calculate the statewide seat belt usage rate

Seat Belt Citations Collect the amount of seat belt citations issued resulting from federally funded local projects

DUI Arrests Collect the amount of DUI Arrests issued resulting from federally funded local projects

Speeding Citations Collect the amount of speeding citations issued resulting from federally funded local projects

15

Plan for Behavioral Survey (CP-2011-03-00-00)

• As a part of the Core Performance Measures, funding needs to be utilized to maintain and expand the behavioral survey. The survey will assess the attitudinal progress of the driving public based on behavioral highway safety questions. The survey will include the required set of core questions, demographic questions, and questions supported by highway safety concerns apparent to PA State programs.

• Survey Distribution Process o The Department will utilize a web-based survey on the DriveSafePA.org website. o The Governor’s Office and The Department will conduct a statewide press release

that will highlight the survey. o The survey will be available to the public for roughly 3 weeks in July 2011

• Analysis Process o Survey results will be tabulated by question in an access database and will be

evaluated in accordance with NHTSA specifications.

V. GRANT SELECTION PROCESS

In 2006/2007 Pennsylvania developed a Comprehensive Strategic Highway Safety Improvement Plan (CSHSIP) to identify priority Safety Focus Areas (SFAs) and strategies in order to meet the Commonwealth’s fatality reduction rate goal of 1.0 per 100 million VMT by 2008. At the time the five year baseline fatality rate was 1.52 fatalities per 100 million VMT. To meet this ambitious goal, PA would have to reduce the fatality rate by over one-third. This would have equated to saving more than 400 lives per year by 2008 from the old five-year average rate of 1,560 fatalities. Since the development of these goals in 2006/2007, Pennsylvania devised a new goal, which will be the driving force behind the use of our funds and the selection of our grants. The new goal is to reduce 100 fatalities per year using the current five year average (1,547) as the starting baseline. By 2011, Pennsylvania hopes to reduce fatalities to 1,150 per year or less.

1.52 1.49 1.491.54

1.48

1.38

1.50

1.411.37 1.37

1.101.151.201.251.301.351.401.451.501.551.60

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Fatal

ities p

er 10

0M V

MT

Fatalities per 100M Vehicle Miles Traveled (1999-2008)(FARS Data)

16

This plan is based on the legislative requirements of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The CSHSIP is a reliable source of information for developing the Highway Safety Plan and establishing grant priorities. The draft CSHSIP is shared with the Safety Advisory Committee (SAC) to provide guidance to develop the grant program. Some of the members of the SAC are also part of the Safety Steering Committee who worked on the development of the CSHSIP. The SAC was established in March 2003 by the Program Management Committee (PMC) to provide input into the development of the Highway Grant Safety Program. In the fall of 2009, SAC membership was expanded to include new voices within highway safety in the planning process. Pennsylvania’s approach for developing the CSHSIP was to engage state and national experts by 1) conducting a Highway Safety Summit to gather general input and 2) establish a Highway Safety Steering Committee to develop a draft CSHSIP. Safety partners from both public and private sectors contributed to the development of the plan. A Highway Safety Steering Committee (HSSC), comprised of 35 people from different organizations, developed the draft CSHSIP. Each of the AASHTO safety emphasis areas were studied and prioritized. In addition, the committee identified strategies, owners, and measures that will be useful by the Multi-Agency implementation teams. In 2008, the next version of the CSHSIP, the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), was developed in part by the Highway Safety Office. The SHSP is an enhanced version of the CSHSIP and includes various aspects of highway safety ranging from engineering low cost safety improvements to behavioral planning, awareness, and educational initiatives. This plan takes a comprehensive look at highway safety and draws influence from many different state and local stakeholders. Many of the strategies that were eventually adopted by the state were first discussed during a statewide Safety Summit that involved representation by these stakeholders. These strategies guided the direction of the 2010 Highway Safety Plan (HSP) as well as this one. Following the statewide summit, smaller summits were held in each of the 11 PennDOT Engineering Districts. These summits played an integral role in gaining buy-in at the district level to get more involved with behavioral traffic safety issues. Seven vital Safety Focus Areas (SFAs) were identified in the SHSP. These are the seven areas that offer the highest potential for lives saved and the possibility of reaching our fatality reduction goals. See the SFAs below:

1. Reducing Aggressive Driving 2. Reducing Impaired (DUI) Driving 3. Increasing Seatbelt Usage 4. Addressing Infrastructure Improvements 5. Improving Traffic Records 6. Reducing Motorcycle Crashes 7. Addressing Mature Driver Safety

In addition to these seven SFAs, nine additional ones were identified and will continue to be implemented in that they all contribute to saving lives.

17

The Safety Advisory Committee (SAC) members, and ultimately the Program Management Committee (PMC), approve the state’s overall Highway Safety Program based upon proposals submitted by various highway safety partners and agencies. All proposals are ranked, scored, and broken out by the focus area they address. Each area is ultimately approved or denied. The matrix below illustrates the PMC funding chart that was approved on March 22, 2010. The matrix shows the approved amounts per projects and their focus

1.64 Aggressive Driving (Local) 402

1.41Pennsylvania's Specific, Accountable, Focused, and Efficient (S.A.F.E.) Grant Programs

402

1.34 PSP 2008 Traffic Safety Initiative 402

0.12 Corridor Safety Initiative-Roosevelt Boulevard - Local Police 402

2.68 DUI Sobriety Checkpoint Program - 4101.60 PSP 2008 Traffic Safety Initiative 410

0.80 Chemical Breath Test and Police Traffic Law Enforcement Training 402/410

0.79Operational Maintenance and Technical Support for the PA Alcohol Highway Safety Program

410

0.55Pennsylvania's Specific, Accountable, Focused, and Efficient (S.A.F.E.) Grant Programs

402

0.20 DUI Court 4100.15 Blood Alcohol Testing Lab 410

1.25Buckle Up PA-Municipal Police Occupant Protection Enforcement & Education Program - Local Police

402/405

0.96 Traffic Injury Prevention Program (TIPP) 402

0.92Pennsylvania's Specific, Accountable, Focused, and Efficient (S.A.F.E.) Grant Programs

402

0.45 PSP 2008 Traffic Safety Initiative 405

4

Infrastructure Improvement & Local Road

Safety

0.35 0.35 Municipal Safety Liaison-Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) Engineers

408

5 Crash Data Improvement 0.88 0.88 Traffic Records - BHSTE (TRCC &

CDART)402

6 Motorcycle Safety 0.34 0.34 Motorcycle Safety Programs - (BDL) 2010

7 Mature Driver Safety 0.03 0.03 Mature Driver Safety Programs - (BDL) 402

0.30 Planning and Administration 402

0.02Public Information & Education Program Materials - CO Press Office Support - BHSTE

402

0.01 Grant-Specific Training - (dotGrants/DUI Courts)

402

16.77 16.77

The Following Programs Address Multiple SHSP Priorities:

NHTSA Funding*

1

Reduce Aggressive

Driving Crashes

6.77

FFY2011 Safety Program Proposal by Safety Advisory CommitteeProposed Funding

(in millions)

All

4.51

0.33

Pennsylvania's Specific, Accountable, Focused, and Efficient (S.A.F.E.) Grant Programs ($2,883,500.00)

CSHSIP Priority

Reduce DUI Crashes

PSP 2010 Traffic Safety Initiative ($3,385,000.00)

Safety Focus Area Program Name

Funding Sub Totals

(in millions)

Department Priorities

3.58Increase Seat Belt Use *3

2

Total (in millions)

18

The HSP shows the total amount of federal funds that will be committed to each program. The SAC provides a broad perspective in the alignment of behavioral highway safety programs across all critical safety partners in PA. Behavioral programs involve police traffic enforcement in combination with public education and information activities. Infrastructure safety programs deal with physical infrastructure improvements and are not addressed by the SAC. Infrastructure safety programs are identified in the PennDOT District Safety Plans and are incorporated in the Deputy Secretary for Highway Administration’s business plan. In overview, the 2008 behavioral programming funded through SAFETEA-LU legislation involves the following program focus areas:

• Increasing occupant protection use • Child passenger safety • Various programs to reduce alcohol related crashes and fatalities • Motorcycle education and training • Crash data improvement program

Once approved and implemented, all projects are monitored in accordance with procedures established by PennDOT. Project directors are required to submit a quarterly report indicating activities and progress. Reports are requested on standard quarters: October to December, January to March, April to June, and July to September. Annual reports are also requested for identified projects. In addition to quarterly reports, the sobriety checkpoint projects are required to submit event data as it occurs or monthly.

19

I. OVERVIEW

Law enforcement agencies in Pennsylvania are provided overtime enforcement funding through a grant with PennDOT to implement proven and cost-effective traffic safety enforcement strategies. These strategies address child passenger safety and aggressive driving by providing statewide, as well as local, enforcement in specific problem areas.

II. CORE PERFORMANCE MEASURES

III. STATE GOALS

• Pennsylvania’s goal is to reduce speeding related fatalities to 470 or less by 2011 and to reduce aggressive driving related fatalities to 141 or less by 2011. This represents the

661 757 675 783 718 634 511 470200300400500600700800900

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Numb

er of

Fata

lities

Speeding Related Fatalities (2004-2008) and Goals (2009-2011)(FARS Data)

Actual Goals Linear Trendline (Actual and Projected)

9,044 54,140 110,148 123,1980

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

2006 2007 2008 2009

Numb

er of

Cita

tions

Speeding Citations from Aggressive Driving Enforcement Operations(State Data)

POLICE TRAFFIC SERVICES

POLICE TRAFFIC SERVICES

20

pace at which the speeding related and aggressive driving fatality reduction would need to remain if overall state-wide fatalities were to reduce by 100 per year.

IV. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION OVERVIEW

Overview: Addressing aggressive driving, speeding, DUI and special highway safety traffic enforcement

These projects provide enforcement at a statewide level. As shown above, the coverage of this project adequately justifies funding as the PSP has jurisdiction over half the municipalities in Pennsylvania and 20 percent of the population.

190 203 212 192 141 141 141 1410

50

100

150

200

250

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Numb

er of

Fata

lities

NHTSA Aggressive Driving Fatalities (2004-2008) and Goals (2009-2011)(State Data)

Actual Goals Linear Trendline (Actual and Projected)

1,2511,322

Municipality Coverage

Local Municipality Coverage

Full Time PSP Coverage 9,895,526

2,537,266

Population Coverage

Local Municipality Coverage

Full Time PSP Coverage

21

Overview: Addressing impaired driving:

DUI Arrests continue to climb. Our statewide program is providing officers Standard Field Sobriety Training (SFST) which allows officers to more accurately make DUI arrests. Overview: Addressing Specific Corridors:

CRASHES PER YEAR ON HIGHWAY SAFETY CORRIDORS 2006 2007 2008 2009 I-81 Scranton Area 56 53 47 61 I-81 Capital Beltway 136 143 166 148 I-81 Carlisle Area 25 40 28 25 SR 30 Westmoreland Co 44 36 41 35 I-81 Wilkes-Barre 80 88 73 85 SR 100 Chester Co 126 76 64 63 I-80 Monroe Co 97 93 70 70 US 30 Somerset Co 28 16 20 19 SR 119 Westmoreland Co 30 25 9 14 SR 220 Lycoming Co 17 21 23 25 US 1 Philadelphia (Roosevelt Boulevard) 218 212 197 225 Total 857 803 738 770 Despite a rise in 2009, there has been an overall decline in the number of crashes on these safety corridors. By maintaining highly visible levels of enforcement we are on the path to significantly reducing crashes on these roadways.

2,257 2,016 2,921 3,394 3,432 5,2751,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,5005,0005,500

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Numb

er of

DUI

Arre

stsDUI Arrests from Impaired Driving Enforcement

(State Data)

22

Overview: Addressing Roosevelt Boulevard in Philadelphia:

V. COUNTERMEASURES

• PA State Police Traffic Safety Initiatives (PT-2011-01-00-00) o Aggressive Driving Enforcement and Education

Problem Identification: See Local Police – Aggressive Driving Enforcement and Education Project’s problem ID

Continue to have every troop participate in Pennsylvania’s Aggressive Driving Enforcement and Education Project (formerly Smooth Operator). Schedule and coordinate earned media events and regional road selection planning meetings. Use data driven enforcement in high crash locations to target aggressive drivers and reduce crashes. Assist in joint operations with local police departments; especially with those that need the use of radar (local police can’t use radar in Pennsylvania).

o Corridor Safety Problem Identification: Often a disproportionately large number of

crashes happen on a small number of roads. A lack of enforcement, public education, and awareness can result in dangerous driving habits on local corridors. Any road that has a crash rate at least 1.5 times the homogenous crash rate can be considered for Highway Safety Corridor designation.

This task also provides for speed and aggressive driving enforcement on 11 designated high crash corridors across the state. These corridors were selected based upon prior crash history and the possibility of local PSP Troop cooperation for increased visible enforcement. The corridors are marked by “Safety Corridor-Fines Doubled” signs.

o Standard Field Sobriety Training (SFST)

Problem Identification: Impaired driving was a contributing factor in 442 preventable fatalities on Pennsylvania roadways in 2009. With proper training, especially in SFST, officers will be able to legally

9 3 20

2

4

6

8

10

2007 2008 2009

Fatal

ities

Roosevelt Boulevard Fatalities

23

identify impaired drivers and remove them from the road hopefully before a crash occurs.

This task trains state police troopers in SFST to be more apt in detecting drinking drivers, especially heavy drinkers who have developed a tolerance to alcohol. Identifying and removing these intoxicated drivers from the highways will ensure a safer environment for all motorists traveling on the Commonwealth’s highways.

o Special Traffic Enforcement Program Problem Identification: See Local Police – Aggressive Driving

Enforcement and Education Project’s problem ID The STEP program is designed to increase traffic safety and reduce the

number of crashes through innovative traffic enforcement operations. STEP operations shall include speed enforcement initiatives utilizing Department emergency vehicles, Department motorcycles, radar and Operation SPARE.

o Operation Maximum Effort Problem Identification: See Local Police – Aggressive Driving

Enforcement and Education Project’s problem ID This task provides a highly visible and aggressive speed enforcement

effort to obtain voluntary compliance with the Commonwealth’s posted speed limits and rules of the road.

• Roosevelt Boulevard Project (PT-2011-02-00-00)

o Problem Identification: The combination of high speeds, traffic signals, and pedestrians on the Roosevelt Boulevard creates a complicated problem which requires special attention/overtime enforcement from the Philadelphia Police Department. According to a recent study done by State Farm Insurance, two of the three most dangerous intersections in the country are on Roosevelt Boulevard.

o PennDOT will continue to fund the Philadelphia City Roosevelt Boulevard speed enforcement project. These funds pay for 365 days/year overtime enforcement on the 12.5 mile corridor. Roosevelt Boulevard is essentially a high speed 12 lane highway with traffic lights and pedestrian crossings at a majority of the intersections. This roadway design possesses many crash problems. Continuous enforcement on the Boulevard has proven to be effective. Fatalities on the road have dropped from 9 in 2007 to 2 in 2009.

• Local Police – Aggressive Driving Enforcement and Education Project (PT-2011-03-00-00)

o Problem Identification: Motorists have cited aggressive driving as the number one traffic safety threat. Aggressive driving is a problem that all motorists witness on the roadways and may participate in without realizing their actions are aggressive. Approximately 62% of all 2009 traffic fatalities in Pennsylvania involved at least one identified aggressive driving factor. Of those

24

aggressive driving fatalities, 30% were speeding-related. Aggressive driving actions include (but are not limited to) speeding, tailgating, red light running, frequent lane changes, failing to yield to the right of way, and passing improperly. Dangerous driving habits such as these played a part in 778 traffic fatalities on Pennsylvania roadways in 2009. Extra enforcement coupled with intensive media coverage will lead to greater public awareness, more responsible driving practices, a lasting change in motorist behavior, and ultimately fewer aggressive driving-related crashes and fatalities. The plan for selecting aggressive driving enforcement corridors in Pennsylvania takes into consideration many different possibilities. Officers need to be on designated roadways where there is an opportunity to make two contacts per hour. In fiscal year 2011, each road segment (PennDOT road segments are generally between1/3-2/3 miles in length) in Pennsylvania with five or more NHTSA defined aggressive driving crashes over the past five years will be considered for enforcement. For these selected roadways, officer knowledge and local data is referenced at planning meetings to determine if the road has a true problem.

o Fiscal year 2011 will mark Pennsylvania’s 6th year participating in the Aggressive Driving Enforcement and Education Program. Currently in fiscal year 2010 there are 302 local police departments conducting aggressive driving on 322 high aggressive driving crash corridors. In fiscal year 2011 we would like to maintain the same level of enforcement commitment on the same number of roads. Continuous recognizable enforcement on these dangerous corridors will help greatly in reducing crashes and fatalities in years to come. Press events and public awareness to highlight the enforcement effort and promote safe driving is also necessary. Even small aggressive driving crash reductions on our most dangerous corridors will have a positive effect on the overall statewide crash picture. Local district judges are made aware of which roads are targeted and when enforcement is being conducted. Judge cooperation is very important and it is hoped that educated judges will consider traffic safety when reviewing aggressive driving citations. The 2009 crash data shows a 3.43% reduction from the 2006-2008 baseline in aggressive driving crashes on the on the selected corridors. Between 2006-2008 an average of 14,890 aggressive driving crashes occurred per year on all the roads combined. After intense targeted enforcement in 2009, the number dropped to 14,378. The reduction in crashes is directly related to the number of enforcement hours and citations issued for each corridor. The encouraging results serve as proof that our efforts are effective.

25

SAFETY MEASUREMENTS OBJECTIVE Enforcement Hours Provided for Aggressive Driving Initiative, from the PSP

Perform over 9,000 Hours of Enforcement during the appropriate Aggressive Driving Initiative Waves.

Aerial Speed Enforcement provided for the Aggressive Driving Initiative, from the PSP Perform 100 hours of Aerial Speed Enforcement.

SFST Classes Conducted Perform 4 SFST Classes for Trooper Personnel.

Increase the number of Officers Trained 125 Troopers within Grant Program to be trained in SFST. 15 Troopers will be certified as Drug Recognition Experts (DRE).

Track and examine Citation Data BHSTE staff will collect and analyze data from 31 types of citations/and arrests, focus area related, stemming from overtime enforcement from all PSP Traffic Safety Initiatives.

Provide continuous daily enforcement on the Roosevelt Boulevard

Make 2 contacts per hour during daily 8 hour overtime enforcement shifts. Make 16 contacts per day and at least 5,840 contacts per year.

Mobilize 300 local police department and all State Police Troops to provide data driven aggressive driving enforcement on high crash corridors.

Provide a perception of continuous enforcement on 320 corridors over three waves.

Reduce crashes on aggressive driving corridors from prior three year crash average

In 2009, there was a 3.43% crash reduction from the prior three year crash average on the aggressive driving corridors. PennDOT would like to have at least a 10% reduction each year.

26

I. OVERVIEW

Reducing the number of alcohol-related crashes, fatalities, and injuries occurring on our highways remains a top safety focus area for Pennsylvania. In 2009, there were 406 fatalities as a result of alcohol-related crashes involving a driver with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 or higher. These accounted for 25 percent of all traffic fatalities (pending BAC updates). Pennsylvania has experienced a substantial increase in the number of DUI arrests stemming from grant funded enforcement events, more than doubling since 2004.

II. CORE PERFORMANCE MEASURES

517 526 492 504 496 406 406 388200250300350400450500550

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Numb

er of

Fata

lities

Alcohol Impaired Fatalities BAC .08+ (2004-2008) and Goals (2009-2011) (FARS Data)

Actual Goals Linear Trendline (Actual and Projected)

2,257 2,016 2,921 3,394 3,432 5,2751,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,5005,0005,500

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Numb

er of

DUI

Arre

sts

DUI Arrests from Grant Funded Impaired Driving Enforcement(State Data)

IMPAIRED DRIVING

27

III. STATE GOALS

• Our goal is to reduce DUI related fatalities (any positive BAC) from 531 in 2008 to no more than 483 in 2009, 447 in 2010, and 411 in 2011.

IV. COUNTERMEASURES

• 75 Pa.C.S. § 3817 Contract (AL-2011-01-00-00) o Section 17 of Chapter 38 in the Vehicle Code (Title 75) requires the Department

to submit 14 reports to the Pennsylvania General Assembly which contain statistics on the impaired driving law. The reports cover items such as the number of repeat offenders and the number of charges versus the number of convictions. PennDOT would need to contract with a researcher if any analysis is requested.

• Pennsylvania DUI Association (K8-2011-06-00-00) o Problem Identification – PennDOT is mandated by Chapter 67 and Title 75 to

manage the Alcohol Highway Safety Program (AHSP) for the Commonwealth. In 2009, Pennsylvania had roughly 50,000 first-time and second-time DUI offenders who required Alcohol Highway Safety School (AHSS). With this great demand, it is vital to have instructors with current teaching certification in each County. In 2009, roughly 129 instructors were certified, and 127 Court Reporting Network (CRN) evaluators were certified statewide. In CY 2009 PennDOT granted with 50 police agencies to conduct

over-time enforcement focused on impaired driving. These law enforcement agencies conducted almost 1,000 checkpoints and over 1,800 roving patrols.

o PennDOT contracts with the Pennsylvania DUI Association to manage the AHSP. The two main components of the AHSP deal with DUI offenders. These components are AHSS and the CRN. All DUI offenders are required to attend AHSS prior to license restoration. PennDOT is tasked with certifying both the alcohol highway safety school curriculum and the instructors. In addition to AHSS, DUI offenders are required to be evaluated for alcohol dependency using evaluation tools which are part of the CRN. The output of these evaluations is the client profile form which is presented to the judge prior to sentencing to determine if drug and alcohol treatment are necessary. The Department is tasked with certifying the CRN evaluators.

o PennDOT funds two DUI Law Enforcement Liaisons who act as a resource for the 50 enforcement grantees statewide. Their tasks include, but are not limited to, providing technical assistance to the impaired driving task forces, relay proper case law regarding various aspects of impaired driving, and to act as an extension of PennDOT for our law enforcement partners.

28

• PA State Police (K8-2011-01-00-00) o Problem Identification – Over the past three years, DUI arrests for drug

impairment have increased each year from just over 7,600 in 2006 to more than 10,500 in 2009. The increase in the number of officers trained in drug recognition tactics is greatly responsible for the large increase in drug impaired driving arrests. In addition to the DUI drug arrests; there have been approximately 620 fatal crashes in the past three years in which at least one of the involved drivers tested positive for drug impairment according to FARS.

o The Pennsylvania State Police and its Selective Traffic Enforcement Against Drunk-Driving (STEAD-D) program conduct impaired driving enforcement operations on a sustained basis and coordinating with mobilizations. The Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) program certifies officers each year as experts in drug impairment recognition. The DRE program also includes training on the Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) program. Currently in Pennsylvania there are 80 DREs and 750 ARIDE trained officers.

• Municipal DUI Checkpoint Programs (K8-2011-02-00-00) o Problem Identification – According to state crash data, over the past five

years, 2005 to 2009 there has been an average of roughly 6,000 crashes each year involving a driver with a BAC of at least 0.08 or above. From 2005 to 2009, 11 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties represented over 51 percent of all alcohol-related crashes. PennDOT has 23 of their 50 enforcement grants in those 11 counties. Just under 2.2 million dollars was granted for overtime enforcement in these high-crash counties in FY2010.

o Highly visible and sustained enforcement remains to be the most effective countermeasure in reducing impaired driving related crashes and fatalities. By means of 50 enforcement grants, PennDOT provides funding to over 600 police departments. These participating departments conduct DUI enforcement operations including sobriety checkpoints, roving patrols, phantom checkpoints, and Cops in Shops operations. Enforcement is coordinated throughout the year to correspond with both national and local mobilizations.

• DUI Courts (K8-2011-03-00-00) o Problem Identification – According to FARS data, over the past three years

there has been over 150 fatal crashes that involved a driver with a prior DUI conviction (within the last three years) on their driver’s record. Last year in Pennsylvania just over 57% percent of the DUI convictions were second or subsequent offenses. These repeat offenders have not responded to general DUI treatment and require a more intensive program if any change in attitude is going to occur.

o In an effort to curb DUI recidivism, PennDOT provides counties with grants for DUI Court. The DUI Court model is similar to the pre-existing Drug Court model

29

and much of the same infrastructure is used between the two. The repeat offender will go through a series of parole and treatment phases until the judge decides proper progress has been made and a change in behavior has occurred. Not all repeat offenders have the option to be admitted to the program. In 2011, five DUI Courts will be funded and approximately 200 repeat offenders will be treated. DUI Court grants from PennDOT are renewed for three years and are intended to help a court get started financially until it can become self sufficient. Beginning in FY 2011, a total of five previously grant funded DUI Courts will be self-sufficient.

• Blood Alcohol Testing Lab (K8-2011-04-00-00) o Problem Identification – The processing of DUI arrestees can remove an

officer from patrol for a long period of time. This processing time can range anywhere from one to four hours or even longer for determining impairment of multiple substances.

o The processing of DUI arrestees often takes a considerable amount of time and keeps the arresting officer from patrol. A proven strategy that addresses this problem is the utilization of a breath alcohol testing mobile or BAT Mobile. The Department purchased three (3) BAT Mobiles in FY2010 and will purchase two (2) additional units in FY 2011 upon NHTSA approval. These BAT Mobiles contain all the equipment necessary to be a mobile booking center for DUI arrestees. The State Police will coordinate the use of these units.

• Institute for Law Enforcement Education (K8-2011-05-00-00 & PT-2011-04-00-00) o Officer training in the area of impaired driving enforcement is crucial in

PennDOT achieving success in reducing DUI fatalities. PennDOT finances an MOU with the Department of Education which funds the Institute for Law Enforcement Education (ILEE). Each year, more than 4,000 law enforcement personnel receive training in disciplines ranging from standardized field sobriety testing to certification in evidentiary breath testing equipment.

SAFETY MEASUREMENTS OBJECTIVE Conduct training for AHSS instructors and CRN evaluators Certify 200 AHSS instructors and 300 CRN evaluators by

September 30, 2011.

Conduct police training for drug impaired driving enforcement

Certify 20 officers as Drug Recognition Experts and conduct 3 ARIDE courses by September 30, 2011.

Conduct impaired driving enforcement operations Conduct 700 sobriety checkpoints, 1,700 roving patrols, and 125 cops in shops operations by September 30, 2011.

Continue to fund the implementation of additional DUI Courts

Fund five DUI Courts through September 30, 2011.

Employ the use of Breath Alcohol Testing Mobiles as transportable booking centers

Secure two (2) BAT Mobiles by September 30, 2011.

30

Conduct Standardized Field Sobriety Testing (SFST) training

Perform 45 SFST related trainings by September 30, 2011.

Conduct evidentiary chemical breath test equipment training

Hold 50 breath test related trainings by September 30, 2011.

Conduct sobriety checkpoint training for officers Perform 30 sobriety checkpoint related trainings by September 30, 2011.

Train law enforcement personnel in highway safety related disciplines

Train 5,000 law enforcement officers in highway safety related disciplines in September 30, 2011.

31

I. OVERVIEW

Proper and consistent use of seat belts and child safety seats is known to be the single most effective protection against death and a mitigating factor in the severity of traffic crashes. The 2009 observed seat belt usage rate statewide was 87.93%. Pennsylvania is a secondary law state. However, Pennsylvania’s rate is well above the National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS) average of 75% for secondary law states. Even with an observed seat belt usage rate above the national average, 2007 Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data reports show that 52.9% of occupants killed in passenger vehicle crashes in PA were not properly restrained.

II. CORE PERFORMANCE MEASURES

69.7%

70.7%

70.5% 75.7% 79.0%

81.8%

83.3%

86.3%

86.7%

85.1%

87.9%

88.0%

88.5%

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

100.0%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Perce

nt of

Obse

rved S

eat B

elt U

sage

Observed Seat Belt Usage Rates (1999-2009) and Goals (2010-2011) (PennDOT Data)

Actual Goal Linear Trendline (Actual and Projected)

8,586 14,761 20,803 20,7080

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2006 2007 2008 2009

Seat

Belt C

itatio

ns Is

sued

Seat Belt Citations Issued During Grant Operations FFY2006-2009(PennDOT Data)

Section Title OCCUPANT PROTECTION PROGRAM

32

III. STATE GOALS

• Increase the observed seat belt use rate to 88.0% or higher by the end of 2010 and to 88.5% or higher by the end of 2011.

• Reduce statewide unbelted fatalities to at least 440 deaths per year or less by the end of

2011. This represents the pace at which the unbelted fatality reduction would need to remain if overall state-wide fatalities were to reduce by 100 deaths per year.

IV. COUNTERMEASURES

• Buckle Up PA (K2-2011-02-00-00) and PA State Police (K2-2011-01-00-00) o Problem Identification – Between 2005 and 2009, there were 87,473 crashes in

Pennsylvania where one or more persons were not wearing a seat belt. Thirty-one percent of the fatalities and major injuries in those unbelted crashes occurred between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. Using PennDOT’s Crash Data Analysis Retrieval Tool (CDART), we have identified specific roadway segments by county with relatively high occurrences of unbelted crashes based on 5-year crash data. As an example the green, blue, and red road segments in the map on page 33 show road segments in one area of Erie County with varying ranges of unbelted crashes. Local police departments and the State Police use this data to target enforcement efforts on roadways with high incidences of unbelted crashes.

566 641 598 547 554 445 445 4400

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Numb

er of

Unr

estra

ined F

ataliti

esUnrestrained Fatalities (2004-2008) and Goals (2009-2011)

(FARS Data)

Actual Goals Linear Trendline (Actual and Projected)

33

o

o Buckle Up PA (BUPA) - The success of CIOT depends partly on the participation of municipal and local police departments statewide. BUPA has established a network of Law Enforcement Liaisons who contact municipal police departments and provide them with PennDOT crash data to guide targeted enforcement to roadways with high percentages of unbelted crashes. Two new strategies will be tested during FFY2011: (1) the introduction of a joint Seat Belt and DUI enforcement mobilization and (2) an expansion plan to include up to 450 new departments in the 2010 Thanksgiving mobilization. The 460 departments that have traditionally participated in past mobilizations will provide overtime enforcement hours on an in-kind basis only during the Thanksgiving mobilization allowing funding to be filtered to the new departments. During the Memorial CIOT mobilization, the group of departments who provided in-kind hours during Thanksgiving will be funded and vice versa.

o PA State Police (PSP) - The success of CIOT also depends on the participation of the 16 troops of the PSP statewide. Rural counties with low populations have municipal police departments with limited manpower and resources. The PSP are able to conduct enforcement in these rural areas where the perception of police presence is low. The PSP also augment enforcement efforts in areas with higher populations.

• Buckle Up PA (BUPA) (OP-2011-01-00-00)

o Problem Identification - NHTSA evaluated the effects of the May 2002, 2003, and 2004 CIOT campaigns on belt use in the states. In 2002, belt use increased by 8.6 percentage points across 10 states that used paid advertising extensively in their campaigns. Belt use increased by 2.7 percentage points

34

across 4 states that used limited paid advertising and increased by 0.5 percentage points across 4 states that used no paid advertising. These results show that highly-visible CIOT campaigns have more effect on belt use than campaigns that used limited or no advertising.

o In conjunction with the PennDOT Press Office, BUPA will provide Earned Media Plans for both mobilizations to generate earned media statewide. Some suggested activities to generate earned media will include press releases, public service announcements, and enforcement advisories. BUPA will also identify prime locations for a targeted paid media buys and provide educational programs to elementary, middle, and high schools. The curriculum for one of these educational programs, Survival 101, was completely updated and re-designed to appeal to a modern teen audience. New officers will be trained to provide the re-designed program to requesting schools and boost the number of programs statewide.

• PA State Police (PT-2011-01-00-00)

o Problem Identification - In 2008, there were 125,828 total reportable crashes in Pennsylvania. Children 8 years of age and under were involved in 9,205 of the total reportable crashes and 377 children were either killed or suffered a major injury in those crashes. The improper use or non-use of child safety seats played a major role in the death and injuries of those children.

o The PA State Police will continue to operate a Child Passenger Safety Fitting Station in each PSP station statewide to educate parents and/or guardians on the importance of child safety seats and how to properly install and use them.

SAFETY MEASUREMENTS OBJECTIVE Participate in Thanksgiving 2010 and Memorial Day 2011 seat belt enforcement mobilizations (PA State Police)

Issue approximately 12k citations during (2) mobilizations for CIOT. All 16 troops of the PA State Police will participate in both mobilizations.

Coordinate participation of “zero-tolerance” local and municipal police departments in Thanksgiving 2010 and Memorial Day 2011 seat belt enforcement mobilizations with at least one week devoted solely to nighttime belt enforcement (BUPA)

Issue over 7,000 occupant protection citations; and make over 74,000 contacts during both mobilizations. At least 460 funded departments will participate in both mobilizations.

Implement expansion plan to include additional, new LEAs in the Thanksgiving 2010 mobilization. (BUPA)

Recruit up to 450 new LEAs to conduct overtime enforcement during CIOT mobilizations.

Conduct one joint Seat Belt and DUI enforcement mobilization in cooperation with PA DUI Task Forces statewide. (BUPA)

Form agreements with at least 30 DUI Task Forces to conduct overtime DUI enforcement (410 funding) in conjunction with BUPA departments conducting overtime traffic safety enforcement.

Coordinate and preserve the integrity of the statewide observational seat belt survey immediately following the 2011 Memorial Day Click It or Ticket mobilization (BUPA)

Survey will be completed immediately following the Memorial Day Click It or Ticket mobilization and results will be reported to NHTSA.

35

Create, implement, and monitor a statewide strategic seat belt plan to reach every county during the Thanksgiving 2009 and Memorial Day 2010 mobilizations (BUPA)

Final version of plan to be created by October 22, 2010.

Provide a comprehensive statewide Earned Media Plan for each Mobilization with at least 16 activities for the Memorial Day Mobilization (BUPA)

Final version of Thanksgiving Earned Media Plan to be completed and distributed by October 22, 2010. Final version of Memorial Day Earned Media Plan to be completed and distributed by February 25, 2011.

Provide data and direction to target the NHTSA Paid Media Buy for Memorial Day Mobilization or other identified campaigns (BUPA)

Data to be gathered and compiled by February 25, 2011.

Train officers to provide educational programs to elementary, middle, and high schools (BUPA)

Train 200 new officers in the re-designed Survival 101 middle and high school program. Train 50 new officers in the 16 minutes high school program. Train 50 new officers in the Back Is Where It’s At elementary program.

Provide educational programs to elementary, middle, and high schools (BUPA)

Provide 800 educational programs to schools throughout the course of FY2011 and contact over 40k students.

Continue operation of 87 Child Passenger Safety Fitting Stations statewide (PA State Police)

Perform 1,900 car seat checks or more during FFY2011.

36

I. OVERVIEW

Sixty-four percent (64%) of all roadways in Pennsylvania are local, or municipal, roads. Pennsylvania’s municipalities currently employ over 12,000 road and bridge workers to manage over 70,000 miles of road.

The Local Road Safety Education Program is responsible for coordinating low-cost safety improvements on local roads. Examples of low-cost safety improvements include rumble strips, advanced curve warning signs, intersection signing and pavement markings, chevrons, tree removal, and shoulder drop-off elimination. Through this programming, our highway safety office can provide a more well-rounded approach to addressing highway safety issues. Engineering enhancements go hand in hand with behavioral enforcement and education efforts in reducing crashes and fatalities on our roadways.

II. STATE GOALS

• Reduce local road fatalities from 197 in 2009 to 197 in 2010, and 190 in 2011.

III. COUNTERMEASURES

• Local Technical Assistance Program (RS-2010-01-00-00) o Problem Identification: In 2009, 27% of all crashes and 16% of all fatalities in

Pennsylvania occurred on local roads. Addresses the problem of 197 local road fatalities in 2009 by providing safety technical assistance to municipalities that have areas of roadway safety concerns.

o BHSTE supplements a contract for the Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP). Through this contract, two program engineers act as traffic safety advocates to the

248 244 253 290 163 227 232 238 268 279 235 197 197 1900

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Numb

er of

Fata

lities

Local Road Fatalities (1998-2009) and Goals (2010-2011)(PennDOT Data)

Actual Goals Linear Trendline (Actual and Projected)

Section Title LOCAL ROAD SAFETY EDUCATION

37

Commonwealth’s municipalities by performing one-on-one technical assistance and by providing classroom training.

Safety Technical Assistance (Walkable Community and Local Safe Road Community Programs)

To assist municipalities in identifying and properly addressing these local road safety concerns, PennDOT has crafted a methodology that allows traffic safety engineers to quickly identify a few of the high crash locations within communities, focusing specifically on local roads and local road intersections with PennDOT roads, and to develop low-cost solutions to mitigate the crash potential at those locations. These low cost “solutions” or safety improvements are safety countermeasures that address specific crash causes at an intersection or roadway that may be implemented at relatively little cost by municipal forces. They are part of a comprehensive strategy to improve safety on our roads, and are the focus of the Walkable Community and Local Safe Road Community Programs.

During an initial meeting with municipal officials, LTAP engineers gather pertinent local information from these officials and then collect available crash data, traffic data and traffic studies. LTAP staff then discuss safety problem areas with managers or police officers at each municipality, with the goal of developing a list of study locations. LTAP, along with municipal officials, then visit the agreed upon study locations and record pertinent observations and photographs from the sites. Back in the office, those on-site observations are written into reports that describe the existing conditions, suggest safety countermeasures that would likely improve safety, and outline the development of a long-term safety plans. The reports are accompanied by a table of recommendations that lists every specific countermeasure recommended by LTAP staff, along with an approximate cost for implementing each countermeasure. Recommendations may cover the 4 “E’s” of highway safety including judicial involvement to improve highway safety. The community has the opportunity to examine the suggestions to enhance safety at the locations in the report, and determine if the recommended measures are appropriate from their experiential perspective. Community officials also have the opportunity to prioritize the recommendations, applying safety measures on a protracted basis as resources allow.

SAFETY MEASUREMENTS OBJECTIVE Complete Local Safe Road Community Programs

Conduct 12 by the end of September 30, 2011.

Complete Walkable Community Programs Conduct 6 by the end of September 30, 2011.

Provide on-site and additional telephone safety-related technical assists to municipalities.

Complete 75 by the end of September 30, 2011.

38

Conduct safety training courses in the areas of work zone traffic control, traffic signs, risk management and tort liability, roadway safety improvement programs, engineering and traffic studies, roadway safety features, traffic signal maintenance, traffic calming, trenching and worker safety, and bicycle and pedestrian safety.

Conduct 100 by the end of September 30, 2011.

Conduct “Safety Improvement Program” training sessions and develop safety improvement plans for identified “Local Safe Roads Communities.”

Conduct 10 by the end of September 30, 2011.

39

I. OVERVIEW Timely and accurate crash data is needed by PennDOT and other agencies (including the Legislature) for safety planning, program development, and tort defense. The data is also used to develop intervention strategies to reduce fatalities and injuries throughout the Commonwealth. The Highway Safety Office, State and municipal police agencies and engineering districts use crash data to locate areas for directing education, engineering, and enforcement efforts. The purpose of this grant program is to support the development and implementation of effective programs by the States to improve crash data quality and timeliness, along with enhancing data analysis tools. A very beneficial program utilized in Pennsylvania is the FastFARS system (see page 39). This preliminary collection program includes an early notification system, collection of auxiliary documents, and a warning system when a crash is getting close to its time limit for submission to FARS. The data programs projects are ultimately approved by the Traffic Records Coordinating Committee (TRCC). The TRCC is a multi-agency team working to ensure good data are available for highway safety. The TRCC meets every quarter to review the status of existing projects and discuss ideas that would eventually lead to new and unique projects. The Highway Safety Office reviews and manages TRCC approved projects to ensure compliance with all applicable federal and state policies and regulations.

II. STATE GOALS

• Complete all 2010 year crash data by April 2011.

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Crash Data Quality: Average Errors per Case(PennDOT Data)

Overall

PSP Average

Electronic Submissions

Projected Overall

Projected PSP

Projected Electronic

DATA PROGRAMS

40

The above graph shows process times of the year that the data was made available. It includes crash reports that arrived a year late and is an update on past calculations. In prior years the calculation was based on the year of crash. That method had the potential of invalid or skewed data, as reports not received for a given calendar crash year would not be included in the calculation.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

FastFARS Timeline MeasuresMeasured as difference from crash date to date entered into FastFARS

(PennDOT Data)

2008 2009 2010

272.93

351.9

489.06

68.51 37.79 23.76 20.000

100

200

300

400

500

600

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Average Process Days(Measured as average days between Crash Date and Crash Data Availability Date)

Average Process Days Goal

41

III. COUNTERMEASURES

• Crash Records Law Enforcement Liaison Project Phase II (K9-2011-01-00-00) o In response to PennDOT’s need to improve the quality of the crash records

recording process the North Central Highway Safety Network (NCHSN) embarked on a challenging project during FY 2009. From March 23, 2009 thru September 30th, 2009 NCHSN assisted the Bureau of Highway Safety and Traffic Engineering’s (BHSTE) Crash Records Division (CRD) with the transition of crash record submissions by PA police agencies from paper to electronic filing.

o There are approximately 1,200 individual police agencies in the State (not including PSP). A priority list has been created establishing the order in which agencies will be contacted during the 12 months on Phase II of the project. As with Phase I of the project, baseline data will be gathered for each law enforcement agency in order to monitor change in crash record submission. Each law enforcement agency will be contacted and improvement strategies will be implemented. The final activity will be overall project evaluation and final report preparation.

o As of the most recent data set provided by the CRD, the following outcome data is a reflection of the level of success achieved throughout the CRLEL project activity period: Of the 971 LEA’s submitting crash reports during 2010 to date, 737 LEA’s submitted 100% electronically or 76%; an additional 131 LEA’s or 13% submitted crash reports utilizing either the CRS or an approved FTP, as well as paper submissions. Of these 131 LEA’s , 86 or 66% ( of the 131) submitted a large majority of their reports electronically, while 45 or 34% of these reflect a majority of paper submissions; the 737 100% submitters in addition to the 131 minor/major electronic CR filers represents a total of 868 LEA’s utilizing the electronic CR filing system or 89.4%. Ninety-five or approximately 10% of the reporting LEA’s use 100% paper submission. A major focus of the CRLEL network during the Phase III effort will be on transitioning the 131 partial e-filing LEA’s to 100% CR submissions and transitioning the 95 paper LEA’s to electronic submission of crash reports.

• Traffic Records Assessment (K9-2011-01-00-00) o A new traffic records assessment shall be conducted in FFY 2010, to adhere to

federal requirements in relation to Section 408 Funding. This assessment will provide updated guidance on the state of traffic records in Pennsylvania. The analysis will identify new and/or existing deficiencies, so that appropriate projects and countermeasures shall be implemented to counteract them.

• The following projects are projected to occur for FFY2011, pending TRCC Approval (K9-2011-01-00-00)

o Continuation of the Crash Records Law Enforcement Liaison Project – Phase 3 The desire of the new project phase is to achieve an even higher

percentage of LEAs using electronic reporting. This phase should be a transition to a planned full electronic submission requirement planned for

42

FFY2012. Additionally, the project will include further goals for receiving reports containing fewer errors, improving the overall quality of Pennsylvania’s crash data.

o TraCS Implementation for Local Police Over the last few years the PSP has built a crash reporting form and traffic

citation e-filing system using TraCS software. An eventual goal is to provide it to local police departments. To do this the TraCS system will need some additional modifications and a technical support area to handle local police inquiries. The planned project would require a PSP staff augmentation position for these duties.

o Crash Data for Police, Partners, and the Public – Phase 1 Pennsylvania has long desired implementing a website where its safety

partners, the police who provide crash data, and the general public can get its own crash data. This phase of the project would consist of scoping a full implementation of the task. The project would consist of benchmarking other states, determining what each segment group would desire, and an overall plan from technical structure to timelines.

SAFETY MEASUREMENTS OBJECTIVE Electronic Crash Record Submission Rate Meet or exceed a 91% electronic submission rate.

Decrease in Crash Record Error Rate Reduce the crash record error rate to 3% or less.

Decrease in Processing Time Reduce the processing time of a crash report to 20 days or less (using the new calculation method).

Decrease in FastFARS Reporting Time Reduce the processing time of a FastFARS report to 4 days or less.

43

I. OVERVIEW

In 2009, 193 drivers aged 20 years or less were killed in motor vehicle accidents along with 136 pedestrians of all ages. Also in 2009, approximately 351 vehicle occupants under the age of 21 were seriously injured in a crash. Our local programs, or Community Traffic Safety Projects (CTSP), are viewed as an extension of the highway safety office and are a critical component of the highway safety program to aid in the reduction of fatalities statewide. Our CTSP are vital in aiding our office at a local and statewide level with generation of earned media, mobilization coordination, and programmatic issues relating to the appropriate focus areas of drivers and occupants, aged 20 or less, pedestrian safety, as well as child passenger safety. An estimated 90% of children who are placed in child safety seats and booster seats are improperly restrained. In 2009, there were 121,242 reportable crashes in Pennsylvania. Children 8 years of age and under were involved in 9,328 of those crashes. To address the widespread misuse and non-use of proper restraint system for children 8 years and under, we have implemented an effective child passenger safety program that provides educational and training programs to the general public, hospitals, and other private health care providers. In addition to educational programs, the Commonwealth also maintains 168 child passenger fitting stations, over 100 loan programs for families in need, a toll-free informational hotline (1-800-CAR-BELT), and an Amish CPS program. II. CORE PERFORMANCE MEASURES

150 159 166 151 137 134 128 1180

20406080

100120140160180

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Fatal

ities

Pedestrian Fatalities (2004-2008) and Goals (2009-2011)(FARS Data)

Actual Goals Linear Trendline (Actual and Projected)

COMMUNITY TRAFFIC SAFETY PROJECTS

44

III. STATE GOALS

• Reduce pedestrian fatalities from 134 in 2009 to 128 in 2010 and 118 in 2011.

IV. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION OVERVIEW

PA Safe Grants (CP-2011-01-00-00)

294 261 261 274 193 197 197 1900

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Drivers Age 20 or Less in Fatal Crashes (2004-2008) and Goals (2009-2011)(FARS Data)

Actual Goals Linear Trendline (Actual and Projected)

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

$0.00$100,000.00$200,000.00$300,000.00$400,000.00$500,000.00$600,000.00$700,000.00$800,000.00

Popu

lati

on

Fund

ing

PA Safe Grants FY 2011 - Proposed Funding vs. Population(2000 US Census)

FFY2011 Projected FundsPopulation

45

The table on the previous page depicts how our local programs are spread out across the state to adequately serve local communities and populations. Please note that some projects incur higher costs in more urban areas. Overview: Addressing Crashes at a Local Level

*NOTE: the PA Traffic Safety Project includes uniquely funded projects; therefore, its data is skewed. PA Traffic Injury Prevention Project (CP-2011-02-00-00) Overview: Addressing Major and Minor Injury Crashes in Children Aged 8 and Under

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

$0.00$100,000.00$200,000.00$300,000.00$400,000.00$500,000.00$600,000.00$700,000.00$800,000.00

Cras

hes

Fund

ing

PA Safe Grants FY 2011 - Proposed Funding vs. Crashes(State Data)

FFY2011 Projected Funds 2009 Crashes

6 19 750

1020304050607080

Killed Major Moderate

Fatalities and Injuries of Children Age 8 & Under in 2009Traffic Crashes

(PennDOT Data)

# of children

46

From the chart above, note that over 350 children were either killed or suffered a major injury as a result of a motor vehicle crash. Our PA TIPP project aids the public in proper restraint use to prevent injury as a whole. Overview: Addressing Use and Misuse of Child Restraints in Children 8 and Under

PA TIPP addresses the approximate 16% misuse or non-use of child restraints, in crashes involving a child under the age of 8 by providing appropriate information and education to parents across the state, in fitting stations, pediatric offices and hospitals. It also addresses this by providing and training instructors and technicians. V. COUNTERMEASURES

• PA Safe Grants (CP-2011-01-00-00) o Problem ID: This grant program addresses the 314 fatalities that occurred in

2009, that were classified as either pedestrian or involved a younger person by partnering with local governments and organizations to address this issue and target more specific, local problems.

o The combination of Pennsylvania’s large geographic size, large population, and large transportation system and the relatively small size of the State’s Highway Safety Office makes CTSPs a necessary link to reach communities statewide. As a part of addressing local traffic safety issues, the CTSPs identify enforcement training needs; partner with local organizations to address identified safety focus areas; assist enforcement agencies to target local problems based on crash data; serve as a local contact for the general public; act on PennDOT’s behalf in the development of local safety action plans and safety efforts; provide educational programs to schools, large local employers, and other community organizations; and provide outreach and education on a variety of traffic safety issues to

84

16

Percentage of Correct and Incorrect Use of Child Restraints for Children 8 and Under Injured or Killed in Traffic Crashes

(PennDOT Data)

Used CorrectlyUsed Incorrectly

47

Magistrate District Justices (MDJs). Those CTSPs with official seat belt survey sites within their jurisdictions are asked to conduct informal seat belt surveys to monitor seat belt usage rates throughout the year.

• PA Traffic Injury Prevention Project (CP-2011-02-00-00) o Problem ID: The Traffic Injury Prevention Project addresses the 193

fatalities that involved a driver of age 20 or less by developing and implementing highway safety programs targeting children from birth to 21 years of age. Children aged 8 or less were involved in approximately [7%] of the total reportable crashes in 2009.

o PennDOT has a contract with the PA Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics entitled “PA Traffic Injury Prevention Project (PA TIPP).” The contract develops and implements highway safety programs that target children from birth to age 21. The focus of this project is primarily on child passenger safety and special needs transportation, but also addresses seat belts and airbags, pedestrian safety, school bus safety, young driver issues, and bicycle safety.

o PA TIPP implements and oversees the administration and the credibility of

NHTSA’s 32-hour Child Passenger Safety Technician Courses that are taught statewide. TIPP also administers the Update/Refresher Courses, Special Needs Classes, Medical Staff Trainings, and other various educational programs. PA TIPP surveys and maintains directories of the Commonwealth’s Fitting Stations and Loan Programs. Other responsibilities include: Operation of 1-800-CAR-BELT, the Commonwealth’s CPS information hotline and the coordination of CPS Car Seat Checks statewide.

• Public Information and Education (CP-2011-03-00-00) o Problem ID: This grant program aids in addressing the [358] fatalities that

occurred in 2009, that were classified as either pedestrian or involved a younger driver by providing public education materials and information to the public.

o BHSTE is revising out-dated brochures and other educational materials that are available free to the general public. The brochures cover a variety of traffic safety issues including but not limited to the following topics: seat belts; child passenger safety; school bus safety; DUI prevention; bicycle, pedestrian, and motorcycle safety; winter driving; aggressive driving prevention; rail-highway safety; and heavy truck safety.

o As a part of NHTSA Core Performance Measures the Behavioral Survey funding

will be utilized under this section. The survey, administered in July of 2010 will assess the attitudinal progress of the driving public based on behavioral highway safety questions. The survey will include the required set of core questions and

48

also will include further questions supported by highway safety concerns apparent to PA state programs.

• Grant Training (CP-2011-04-00-00) o BHSTE currently manages approximately 100 grant projects utilizing SAFETEA-

LU funding. As new activities and personnel are added to the programs various training needs are identified. This line provides funding to conduct various trainings and fund related travel as needs are identified throughout our sub-grantee network.

SAFETY MEASUREMENTS OBJECTIVE Conduct Informal Seat Belt Surveys to identify low usage areas for targeted enforcement during Memorial Day Click It or Ticket mobilization

Conduct Informal Surveys at 100% of the official Seat Belt Survey Sites by March 31, 2011.

Contacts with the general public Increase the amount of contacts with the general public from the total reached in 2010 by 2%.

Contacts with local and municipal law enforcement agencies

Increase the amount of law enforcement contacts from the total reached in 2010 by 2%.

Contacts with Magisterial District Judges Increase the amount of MDJ contacts from the total reached in 2010 by 2%.

Distribute Medical Information Carrier Systems for helmets to the general public

Increase the amount of Carrier Systems distributed from the total distributed in 2010 by 2%.

Distribute bicycle helmets to the public Increase the amount of helmets distributed by 2%.

Numbers and types of educational programs and trainings conducted

Conduct educational programs and trainings. It is estimated that 100 educational programs will be performed by the end of FY 2010.

Per the CPS Assessment, identify proper levels of service (i.e. fitting stations, training, and education) by county

Maintain service to 95% of Pennsylvania’s total population of 12,281,054 (2000 U.S. Census).

49

I. OVERVIEW

Pennsylvania has nearly 1.5 million licensed drivers aged 65 and older and they make up almost 17 percent of the driving population. Pennsylvania has the fifth largest population of individuals aged 65 or older in the United States. Overall, older citizens constitute the fastest growing segment of the population. Pennsylvania State Data Center statistics indicate that the number of Pennsylvanians 65 and older will increase 21 percent by 2020. A recent rise in mature driver fatalities emphasizes the importance of progressing our safety strategies for the growing population of older drivers on Pennsylvania roadways.

II. STATE GOALS

III. COUNTERMEASURES

• Mature Driver Taskforce (DE-2011-02-00-00) o Problem ID: In 2009, one behavioral safety focus area saw a rise in fatalities,

Mature Drivers. 22% (276) of all fatalities in PA involved a driver over the age of 65, a total higher than that of PA’s motorcycle rider population (204). Mature drivers have difficulty with more complex driving tasks, including failure to properly yield the right of way; improper left turns across traffic, pulling out of intersections, and making abrupt and improper lane changes.

o For these reasons mature driver safety has been identified in Pennsylvania’s SHSP as one of the “vital seven” safety focus areas. Those countermeasures planned to be implemented from Pennsylvania’s Mature Driver Safety Study, (conducted in 2009-2010) and those in the SHSP have been cross referenced through proven analysis

300 290 277 265 288 300 280 271 208 252 268 259 276 224 2060

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Numb

er of

Fata

lities

Mature Driver Fatalities (Age 65+) (1997-2009) and Goals (2010-2011)(PennDOT Data)

Actual Goals Linear Trendline (Actual and Projected)

Mature Driver Safety MATURE DRIVER SAFETY

50

described in the “NCHRP Report 500, Vol. 9: A Guide for Reducing Collision Involving Older Drivers” and the “NHTSA Countermeasures That Work: 2010 Edition”.

o The statewide study that has been completed analyzed mature driver behaviors, medical conditions, and the reasons why mature drivers are over-represented in specific types of crashes. The outcomes from this study have been reviewed and are being structured into Pennsylvania’s existing behavioral programs and roadway engineering strategies for mature drivers. Funding under this countermeasure will aid PennDOT in implementing behavioral safety measures and outreach that will work toward assisting/educating mature drivers, and ultimately all of the motoring public.

SAFETY MEASUREMENTS OBJECTIVE Create statewide mature driver taskforces that include partnerships with state and local agencies to develop educational and safety opportunities.

Establish 1 task forces for each highway safety region in Pennsylvania.

Promote mature driver education classes (AAA/AARP/Seniors for Safe Driving)

Assist in the development of 17 classes and 1 outreach material for dispersal throughout Pennsylvania.

Promote CarFit program (AARP/AAA) Assist in the development of 17 classes

Provide education and training to increase the public’s awareness of mobility alternatives

Work with Public Transportation on ways to improve awareness. Develop 1 outreach material for grantees to disperse at 17 mature driver education classes.

Conduct NHTSA Older Driver Enforcement Course (Train the Trainer) Hold 12 Classes throughout Pennsylvania.

Conduct training for engineers in road design for mature driver issues Hold 1 training for PennDOT engineers.

51

I. OVERVIEW

Motorcycle crashes in 2009 saw an 11.36% reduction from the 2008 crash number. State data indicates a decrease in motorcycle fatalities as well. In 2009, there was a .7% (8.3% from ‘07-‘08) increase in motorcycle registrations, and a 1.4% (1.9% from ’07-‘08) increase in motorcycle licenses from 2008. PennDOT is hoping the 2009 numbers help jump-start a downward trend in motorcycle crashes and fatalities for years to come. Pennsylvania’s motorcycle helmet law was repealed in 2003. Currently motorcyclists in Pennsylvania who are 21 years of age or older with two years riding experience or who have successfully passed the Motorcycle Safety Program have the option to ride helmetless. II. CORE PERFORMANCE MEASURES

158 205 188 225 239 204 190 1850

50

100

150

200

250

300

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Numb

er of

Fata

lities

Motorcycle Fatalities (2004-08) and Goals (2009-11)(FARS Data)

Actual Goals Linear Trendline (Actual and Projected)

Section Title MOTORCYCLE SAFETY

52

III. STATE GOALS

Pennsylvania’s goal is to reduce motorcycle fatalities to 185 or less by 2011 and reduce un-helmeted motorcycle fatalities to 69 or less by 2011.

IV. COUNTERMEASURES

• Motorcycle Safety (K6-2011-01-00-00) o Problem Identification-Share the Road Program: Over the past three years,

the majority (60%) of multi-vehicle crashes involving a motorcycle, the vehicle other than the motorcycle was cited as the prime contributing factor in the crash. While motorcycle riders bear the primary responsibility for their own safety, all roadway users must be aware of their surroundings. Among all motor vehicles, motorcycles are the most vulnerable on the road. Because of their size, motorcycles can be easily hidden in the blind spots of other vehicles which sometimes make them appear to come from nowhere. They may be easily overlooked by other vehicle drivers. Additionally, road conditions that do not present a danger to other motor vehicle operators may be deadly to motorcyclists. However, when a motorcyclist takes an evasive action quickly to avoid a hazard, they may be judged as reckless. For these reasons, it is very important to educate the motoring public about the dangers of not watching for motorcycles and provide tips on how motorists can safely share the road.

o PennDOT plans to place a “Watch for Motorcycles” message on all license and registration renewal envelopes. Approximately 10,500,000 of these envelopes will be sent to motorists across the state. Section 2010 funds will be used in this initiative.

75 106 97 101 113 100 75 690

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Unhe

lmete

d Fa

talitie

sUnhelmeted Motorcycle Fatalities (2004-08) and Goals (2009-11)

(FARS Data)

Actual Goals Linear Trendline (Actual and Projected)

53

o Although it will not require the use of Section 2010 funds, PennDOT’s Highway Safety Grantees will coordinate the dispersal of at least 15,000 “Watch for Motorcycle” bumper stickers in 2010. These stickers have become very popular across the state and are in high demand.

o Problem Identification-Motorcycle Promotional Kits and 3-Wheeled Motorcycle Training: With an increased number of motorcycles on the roads, there is also an increase in the number of untrained and unlicensed motorcyclists. The best way for a motorcyclist to learn how to ride is through experience, but the knowledge gained through attending a course with a certified instructor is an invaluable tool in crash avoidance and survivability. According to FARS in 2008, roughly 20% of all motorcycle operators in Pennsylvania involved in a fatal crash was unlicensed or improperly licensed. In 2009, the number of students trained through the PA Motorcycle Safety Course leveled off. The Motorcycle Safety courses are attracting an increasing number of 3-wheeled motorcycle riders. The 3-wheeled motorcycles handle very differently than the 2-wheeled motorcycles and the PA Motorcycle Safety Training Courses are not approved for “trikes”. Currently the motorcycle crash data doesn’t separate “trikes” from standard two-wheeled motorcycles and as the number of registered “trikes” increases so would the number of improperly or untrained riders.

o PennDOT will use Section 2010 fiscal year 2011 funding to create a campaign promoting free training courses offered by the Motorcycle Safety Program (MSP). The campaign will involve promotion and distribution of public information materials (flyers and brochures) through motorcycle dealerships. Better awareness of the course will increase course enrollment and eventually result in better trained and more properly licensed Pennsylvania motorcyclists. In 2009, 26,001 motorcyclists received training through the MSP.

o Use Section 2010 funds to help develop a training course for 3-wheeled motorcycles. Three currently existing motorcycle safety training course locations will have the ability to provide the training in fiscal year 2011. Demand for 3-wheeled training will determine the necessity for opening more training sites.

o Promote LiveFreeRideAlive.com, Pennsylvania’s new motorcycle themed interactive website. Important messages on the site include obeying the speed limit and not riding impaired. The website also emphasizes the importance of being properly licensed and encourages the use of protective gear. Section 2010 funds will not be used for this initiative.

o Problem Identification – Impaired Riders: According to FARS in 2008, roughly 30% of all motorcycle operators in Pennsylvania involved in a fatal crash had some level of impairment. Enforcing DUI laws for motorcyclists and educating law enforcement on proper procedure is crucial in reducing this percentage.

54

o PennDOT plans to conduct approximately 20 law enforcement trainings focusing on educating officers on DUI and motorcyclists. A curriculum and training plan for the course will be developed for fiscal year 2011. Section 410 funds, K8-2011-06-00-00, (not 2010 funds) will be used for this initiative.

o Continue to distribute motorcycle DUI tip cards to law enforcement. The tip cards contain clues for which law enforcement can follow when observing a potentially impaired motorcyclist. The tip cards also contain common motorcycle vehicle code violations that would necessitate making a contact. Section 402 funds, CP-2011-01-00-00, (not 2010 funds) will be used for this initiative.

SAFETY MEASUREMENTS OBJECTIVE Place a “Watch for Motorcycles” message on all driver license and registration renewal envelopes.

Reach 10,500,000 motorists yearly through distribution of renewal envelopes.

Coordinate the dispersal of “Watch for Motorcycle” bumper stickers

Distribute 15,000 stickers in FY 2011.

Develop a campaign to promote the training courses offered by the Motorcycle Safety Program. Have 100% of all motorcycle dealers distribute materials.

Increase the number of students in enrolled in the Basic Ride Course by 10%, increase enrollment by 20% in the Experienced Rider Course

Create training courses to meet demands of new 3-wheeled motorcycle riders

Open three training sites in FY2011. Hold 18 training sessions (6 at each site). Fill all available spots in all 18 trainings.

Educate law enforcement on impaired motorcyclists Provide 20 trainings statewide in FY 2011 and provide DUI tip cards as requested.

55

I. OVERVIEW

In addition to receiving federal 402 funds each year, the Commonwealth is also eligible to apply for additional funds to conduct activities such as seat belt education and enforcement, DUI enforcement, child passenger safety education, and other activities identified by NHTSA. In some cases, Pennsylvania also qualifies for additional funds based on its seat belt use rate or because of laws like the 0.08% law. In 2010, these funds were awarded in the form of approximately 100 state and local agreements and this number is expected to increase for FFY 2011. The implementation of dotGrants, our electronic grants management system, has made the process of applying for funding more efficient and timely. A dedicated staff is required to enable a coordinated program and ensure that Pennsylvania is following both Federal and State laws and procedures.

II. COUNTERMEASURES

• Planning and Administration Project (PA-2011-01-00-00) o This project will provide the necessary funding for the staffing needs of the

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and permit the proper management of federally funded projects.

SAFETY MEASUREMENTS OBJECTIVE

Implement Statewide and Local Projects addressing Highway Safety

Issue approximately 100 or more projects to various state and local agencies by September 30, 2010 for FFY2011 beginning October 1, 2010.

Perform site evaluations and fiscal audits of highway safety projects

Perform approximately 100 site evaluations of projects, and approximately 50 fiscal audits by year end September 30, 2011.

Prepare Annual Report Submission to NHTSA Create 1 Annual Report Submission, for reporting activity, to NHTSA and submit no later than December 31, 2010.

Prepare Section 402 Application Prepare Application for funding to NHTSA and submit no later than September 1, 2011.

Prepare Section 405 Application Prepare Application for funding to NHTSA and submit no later than February 15, 2011.

Prepare Section 408 Application Prepare Application for funding to NHTSA and submit no later than June 15, 2011.

Section Title PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION

56

Prepare Section 410 Application Prepare Application for funding to NHTSA and submit no later than August 1, 2011.

Prepare Section 2010 Application Prepare Application for funding to NHTSA and submit no later than August 1, 2011.

If eligible and meet criteria, prepare Section 2011 Application

Prepare Application for funding to NHTSA and submit no later than July 1, 2011.

57

ll

STATE CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES

CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES

58

Failure to comply with applicable Federal statutes, regulations and directives may subject State officials to civil or criminal penalties and/or place the State in a high risk grantee status in accordance with 49 CFR 18.12.

Each fiscal year the State will sign these Certifications and Assurances that the State complies with all applicable Federal statutes, regulations, and directives in effect with respect to the periods for which it receives grant funding. Applicable provisions include, but not limited to, the following:

• 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 - Highway Safety Act of 1966, as amended

• 49 CFR Part 18 - Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments

• 23 CFR Chapter II - (§§1200, 1205, 1206, 1250, 1251, & 1252) Regulations

governing highway safety programs

• NHTSA Order 462-6C - Matching Rates for State and Community Highway Safety Programs

• Highway Safety Grant Funding Policy for Field-Administered Grants

Certifications and Assurances

Section 402 Requirements

The Governor is responsible for the administration of the State highway safety program through a State highway safety agency which has adequate powers and is suitably equipped and organized (as evidenced by appropriate oversight procedures governing such areas as procurement, financial administration, and the use, management, and disposition of equipment) to carry out the program (23 USC 402(b) (1) (A));

The political subdivisions of this State are authorized, as part of the State highway safety program, to carry out within their jurisdictions local highway safety programs which have been approved by the Governor and are in accordance with the uniform guidelines promulgated by the Secretary of Transportation (23 USC 402(b) (1) (B));

At least 40 per cent of all Federal funds apportioned to this State under 23 USC 402 for this fiscal year will be expended by or for the benefit of the political subdivision of the State in carrying out local highway safety programs (23 USC 402(b) (1) (C)), unless this requirement is waived in writing;

59

This State's highway safety program provides adequate and reasonable access for the safe and convenient movement of physically handicapped persons, including those in wheelchairs, across curbs constructed or replaced on or after July 1, 1976, at all pedestrian crosswalks (23 USC 402(b) (1) (D));

The State will implement activities in support of national highway safety goals to reduce motor vehicle related fatalities that also reflect the primary data-related crash factors within the State as identified by the State highway safety planning process, including:

• National law enforcement mobilizations, • Sustained enforcement of statutes addressing impaired driving, occupant

protection, and driving in excess of posted speed limits, • An annual statewide safety belt use survey in accordance with criteria

established by the Secretary for the measurement of State safety belt use rates to ensure that the measurements are accurate and representative,

• Development of statewide data systems to provide timely and effective data analysis to support allocation of highway safety resources.

(23 USC 402 (b)(1)(E));

The State shall actively encourage all relevant law enforcement agencies in the State to follow the guidelines established for vehicular pursuits issued by the International Association of Chiefs of Police that are currently in effect. (23 USC 402(l)).

Other Federal Requirements

Cash drawdowns will be initiated only when actually needed for disbursement. 49 CFR 18.20

Cash disbursements and balances will be reported in a timely manner as required by NHTSA. 49 CFR 18.21.

The same standards of timing and amount, including the reporting of cash disbursement and balances, will be imposed upon any secondary recipient organizations. 49 CFR 18.41.

Failure to adhere to these provisions may result in the termination of drawdown privileges.

The State has submitted appropriate documentation for review to the single point of contact designated by the Governor to review Federal programs, as required by Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs);

Equipment acquired under this agreement for use in highway safety program areas shall be used and kept in operation for highway safety purposes by the State; or the State, by

60

formal agreement with appropriate officials of a political subdivision or State agency, shall cause such equipment to be used and kept in operation for highway safety purposes 23 CFR 1200.21

The State will comply with all applicable State procurement procedures and will maintain a financial management system that complies with the minimum requirements of 49 CFR 18.20;

Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act

The State will report for each sub-grant awarded:

• Name of the entity receiving the award; • Amount of the award; • Information on the award including transaction type, funding agency, the North

American Industry Classification System code or Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number (where applicable), program source;

• Location of the entity receiving the award and the primary location of performance under the award, including the city, State, congressional district, and country; , and an award title descriptive of the purpose of each funding action;

• A unique identifier (DUNS); • The names and total compensation of the five most highly compensated officers of

the entity if-- of the entity receiving the award and of the parent entity of the recipient, should the entity be owned by another entity;

(i) the entity in the preceding fiscal year received—

(I) 80 percent or more of its annual gross revenues in Federal awards; and(II) $25,000,000 or more in annual gross revenues from Federal awards; and(ii) the public does not have access to information about the compensation of the senior executives of the entity through periodic reports filed under section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a), 78o(d)) or section 6104 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;

• Other relevant information specified by the Office of Management and Budget in subsequent guidance or regulation.

The State highway safety agency will comply with all Federal statutes and implementing regulations relating to nondiscrimination. These include but are not limited to: (a) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin (and 49 CFR Part 21); (b) Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1683, and 1685-1686), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex; (c) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. §794) and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 USC § 12101, et seq.; PL 101-336), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of

61

disabilities (and 49 CFR Part 27); (d) the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended (42U.S.C. §§ 6101-6107), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age; (e) the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-255), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of drug abuse; (f) the comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Act of 1970(P.L. 91-616), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of alcohol abuse of alcoholism; (g) §§ 523 and 527 of the Public Health Service Act of 1912 (42 U.S.C. §§ 290 dd-3 and 290 ee-3), as amended, relating to confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse patient records; (h) Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq.), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination in the sale, rental or financing of housing; (i) any other nondiscrimination provisions in the specific statute(s) under which application for Federal assistance is being made; The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, which provides that any portion of a state or local entity receiving federal funds will obligate all programs or activities of that entity to comply with these civil rights laws; and, (k) the requirements of any other nondiscrimination statute(s) which may apply to the application.

The Drug-free Workplace Act of 1988(41 U.S.C. 702;):

The State will provide a drug-free workplace by:

a. Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition;

b. Establishing a drug-free awareness program to inform employees about: 1. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace. 2. The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace. 3. Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs. 4. The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug violations occurring in the workplace.

c. Making it a requirement that each employee engaged in the performance of the grant be given a copy of the statement required by paragraph (a).

d. Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph (a) that, as a condition of employment under the grant, the employee will –

1. Abide by the terms of the statement. 2. Notify the employer of any criminal drug statute conviction for a violation occurring in the workplace no later than five days after such conviction.

e. Notifying the agency within ten days after receiving notice under subparagraph (d) (2) from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction.

f. Taking one of the following actions, within 30 days of receiving notice under subparagraph (d) (2), with respect to any employee who is so convicted –

1. Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination.

62

2. Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency.

g. Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) above.

BUY AMERICA ACT

The State will comply with the provisions of the Buy America Act (49 U.S.C. 5323(j)) which contains the following requirements:

Only steel, iron and manufactured products produced in the United States may be purchased with Federal funds unless the Secretary of Transportation determines that such domestic purchases would be inconsistent with the public interest; that such materials are not reasonably available and of a satisfactory quality; or that inclusion of domestic materials will increase the cost of the overall project contract by more than 25 percent. Clear justification for the purchase of non-domestic items must be in the form of a waiver request submitted to and approved by the Secretary of Transportation.

POLITICAL ACTIVITY (HATCH ACT).

The State will comply, as applicable, with provisions of the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. §§1501-1508 and 7324-7328) which limit the political activities of employees whose principal employment activities are funded in whole or in part with Federal funds.

CERTIFICATION REGARDING FEDERAL LOBBYING

Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans, and Cooperative Agreements

The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:

1. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.

2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative

63

agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions.

3. The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all sub-award at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grant, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.

This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.

RESTRICTION ON STATE LOBBYING

None of the funds under this program will be used for any activity specifically designed to urge or influence a State or local legislator to favor or oppose the adoption of any specific legislative proposal pending before any State or local legislative body. Such activities include both direct and indirect (e.g., "grassroots") lobbying activities, with one exception. This does not preclude a State official whose salary is supported with NHTSA funds from engaging in direct communications with State or local legislative officials, in accordance with customary State practice, even if such communications urge legislative officials to favor or oppose the adoption of a specific pending legislative proposal.

CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION

Instructions for Primary Certification

1. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective primary participant is providing the certification set out below.

2. The inability of a person to provide the certification required below will not necessarily result in denial of participation in this covered transaction. The prospective participant shall submit an explanation of why it cannot provide the certification set out below. The certification or explanation will be considered in connection with the department or agency's determination whether to enter into this transaction. However, failure of the prospective primary participant to furnish a certification or an explanation shall disqualify such person from participation in this transaction.

3. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when the department or agency determined to enter into this transaction. If it is later determined that the prospective primary participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal

64

Government, the department or agency may terminate this transaction for cause or default.

4. The prospective primary participant shall provide immediate written notice to the department or agency to which this proposal is submitted if at any time the prospective primary participant learns its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances.

5. The terms covered transaction, debarred, suspended, ineligible, lower tier covered transaction, participant, person, primary covered transaction, principal, proposal, and voluntarily excluded, as used in this clause, have the meaning set out in the Definitions and coverage sections of 49 CFR Part 29. You may contact the department or agency to which this proposal is being submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations.

6. The prospective primary participant agrees by submitting this proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR Part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency entering into this transaction.

7. The prospective primary participant further agrees by submitting this proposal that it will include the clause titled "Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transaction," provided by the department or agency entering into this covered transaction, without modification , in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions.

8. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered transaction that it is not proposed for debarment under 48 CFR Part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant may decide the method and frequency by which it determines the eligibility of its principals. Each participant may, but is not required to, check the list of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement and Non-procurement Programs.

9. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings.

10. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 6 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR Part 9, subpart 9.4, suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this

65

transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency may terminate this transaction for cause or default.

Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters-Primary Covered Transactions

(1) The prospective primary participant certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief, that its principals:

(a) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded by any Federal department or agency;

(b) Have not within a three-year period preceding this proposal been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of record, making false statements, or receiving stolen property;

(c) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State or Local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (1)(b) of this certification; and

(d) Have not within a three-year period preceding this application/proposal had one or more public transactions (Federal, State, or local) terminated for cause or default.

(2) Where the prospective primary participant is unable to certify to any of the Statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal.

Instructions for Lower Tier Certification

1. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective lower tier participant is providing the certification set out below.

2. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was entered into. If it is later determined that the prospective lower tier participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment.

66

3. The prospective lower tier participant shall provide immediate written notice to the person to which this proposal is submitted if at any time the prospective lower tier participant learns that its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances.

4. The terms covered transaction, debarred, suspended, ineligible, lower tier covered transaction, participant, person, primary covered transaction, principal, proposal, and voluntarily excluded, as used in this clause, have the meanings set out in the Definition and Coverage sections of 49 CFR Part 29. You may contact the person to whom this proposal is submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations.

5. The prospective lower tier participant agrees by submitting this proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR Part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency with which this transaction originated.

6. The prospective lower tier participant further agrees by submitting this proposal that is it will include the clause titled "Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion -- Lower Tier Covered Transaction," without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions. (See below)

7. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered transaction that it is not proposed for debarment under 48 CFR Part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant may decide the method and frequency by which it determines the eligibility of its principals. Each participant may, but is not required to, check the List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement and Non-procurement Programs.

8. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings.

9. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 5 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR Part 9, subpart 9.4, suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment.

67

Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion -- Lower Tier Covered Transactions:

1. The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by submission of this proposal, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency.

2. Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal.

POLICY TO BAN TEXT MESSAGING WHILE DRIVING

In accordance with Executive Order 13513, Federal Leadership On Reducing Text Messaging While Driving, and DOT Order 3902.10, Text Messaging While Driving, States are encouraged to:

(1) Adopt and enforce workplace safety policies to decrease crashed caused by distracted driving including policies to ban text messaging while driving—

a. Company-owned or –rented vehicles, or Government-owned, leased or rented vehicles; or

b. Privately-owned when on official Government business or when performing any work on or behalf of the Government.

(2) Conduct workplace safety iniatives in a manner commensurate with the size of the business, such as –

a. Establishment of new rules and programs or re-evaluation of existing programs to prohibit text messaging while driving; and

b. Education, awareness, and other outreach to employees about the safety risks associated with texting while driving.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

The Governor's Representative for Highway Safety has reviewed the State's Fiscal Year highway safety planning document and hereby declares that no significant environmental impact will result from implementing this Highway Safety Plan. If, under a future revision, this Plan will be modified in such a manner that a project would be instituted that could affect environmental quality to the extent that a review and statement would be necessary, this office is prepared to take the action necessary to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 USC 4321 et seq.) and the implementing regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR Parts 1500-1517).

68

___________________________________________________________ Governor's Representative for Highway Safety

_________________________________________

State or Commonwealth

_____________

For Fiscal Year

_______________

Date

69

Program

Area Project Description

Prior Approv

ed Progra

m Funds

State

Funds

Previous Bal.

Incre/(Decre)

Current Balance

Share to Local

NHTSA NHTSA 402

Planning and Administration

PA-2011-01-00-00 P&A $.00

$.00 $.00

$400,000.00

$400,000.00 $.00

Planning and Administration Total

$.00

$.00 $.00

$400,000.00

$400,000.00 $.00

Occupant Protection

OP-2011-01-00-00 BUPA $.00

$.00 $.00

$720,000.00

$720,000.00

$720,000.00

Occupant Protection Total

$.00

$.00 $.00

$720,000.00

$720,000.00

$720,000.00

Police Traffic Services

PT-2011-01-00-00 PSP 402 $.00

$.00 $.00

$1,480,000.00

$1,480,000.00 $.00

PT-2011-02-00-00 Roosevelt Blvd. $.00

$.00 $.00

$225,000.00

$225,000.00

$225,000.00

PT-2011-03-00-00 SO 402 $.00

$.00 $.00

$2,418,073.00

$2,418,073.00

$2,418,073.00

PT-2011-04-00-00 Dept. Ed. ILEE $.00

$.00 $.00

$465,000.00

$465,000.00 $.00

Police Traffic Services Total

$.00

$.00 $.00

$4,588,073.00

$4,588,073.00

$2,643,073.00

Community Traffic Safety Project

CP-2011-01-00-00 PA SAFE Grants $.00

$.00 $.00

$3,250,000.00

$3,250,000.00

$3,250,000.00

CP-2011-02-00-00 TIPP $.00

$.00 $.00

$960,000.00

$960,000.00 $.00

CP-2011-03-00-00 PI&E $.00

$.00 $.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $.00

CP-2011-04-00-00 Grant Training $.00

$.00 $.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $.00

Community Traffic Safety Project Total

$.00

$.00 $.00

$4,265,000.00

$4,265,000.00

$3,250,000.00

Driver Education

DE-2011-02-00-00

Mature Driver Taskforce $.00

$.00 $.00 $95,000.00 $95,000.00 $.00

Driver Education Total

$.00 $.00

$.00 $95,000.00 $95,000.00 $.00 Roadway Safety

RS-2011-01-00-00 LTAP $.00

$.00 $.00

$500,000.00

$500,000.00 $.00

PROGRAM COST SUMMARY

70

Roadway Safety Total $.00 $.00

$.00 $500,000.00

$500,000.00

$.00

NHTSA 402 Total

$.00 $.00

$.00 $10,568,073

.00 $10,568,073

.00 $6,613,073.

00 405 OP SAFETEA-LU

K2-2011-01-00-00 PSP 405 $.00

$.00 $.00

$450,000.00

$450,000.00 $.00

K2-2011-02-00-00 BUPA $.00

$.00 $.00

$754,021.00

$754,021.00

$754,021.00

405 Occupant Protection Total $.00

$.00 $.00

$1,204,021.00

$1,204,021.00

$754,021.00

405 OP SAFETEA-LU Total

$.00

$.00 $.00

$1,204,021.00

$1,204,021.00

$754,021.00

408 Data Program SAFETEA-LU

K9-2011-01-00-00 Traffic Records $.00

$.00 $.00

$1,614,541.00

$1,614,541.00 $.00

408 Data Program Incentive Total $.00

$.00 $.00

$1,614,541.00

$1,614,541.00 $.00

408 Data Program SAFETEA-LU Total

$.00

$.00 $.00

$1,614,541.00

$1,614,541.00 $.00

410 Alcohol SAFETEA-LU

K8-2011-01-00-00 PSP 410 $.00

$.00 $.00

$2,100,000.00

$2,100,000.00 $.00

K8-2011-02-00-00

PA DUI Checkpoint Programs $.00

$.00 $.00

$4,486,973.00

$4,486,973.00

$4,486,973.00

K8-2011-03-00-00 DUI Courts $.00

$.00 $.00

$600,000.00

$600,000.00

$600,000.00

K8-2011-04-00-00

Blood Alcohol Testing Lab $.00

$.00 $.00

$150,000.00

$150,000.00 $.00

K8-2011-05-00-00 Dept. Ed ILEE $.00

$.00 $.00

$475,000.00

$475,000.00 $.00

K8-2011-06-00-00 PA DUI Association $.00 $.00 $.00 $820,000.00 $820,000.00 $.00

410 Alcohol SAFETEA-LU Total

$.00

$.00 $.00

$8,631,973.00

$8,631,973.00

$5,086,973.00

2010 Motorcycle Safety

K6-2011-01-00-00 Motorcycle Safety $.00

$.00 $.00

$638,524.00

$638,524.00 $.00

2011 Motorcycle Incentive Total $.00

$.00 $.00

$638,524.00

$638,524.00 $.00

2011 Motorcycle Safety Total $.00

$.00 $.00

$638,524.00

$638,524.00 $.00

NHTSA Total

$.00

$.00 $.00

$22,657,132.00

$22,657,132.00

$12,454,067.00

Total

$.00

$.00 $.00

$22,657,132.00

$22,657,132.00

$12,454,067.00

71